On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Paul Edwards <mutazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip> > > > Wow. Suggesting LOC=32 for z/OS is a bannable offence? > Yeah, that was a bit extreme, IMO. Given some of the, admittedly strange (even I think they're strange) ideas that _I_ sometimes propose, LOC=32 is reasonable. I guess it's your ongoing "pushing" that has Tony P.O.'d. Personally, I just drop out of these types of conversations when they become non-productive. I consider this thread to, now, be non-productive, because there isn't a hope in <redacted> of getting IBM to implement it. Personally, if I wanted to be "pushy", I'd be all over the access method people to make a native AMODE(64) interface to all datasets (i.e. update BSAM, QSAM, and BPAM), say be extending the ACB somehow. And don't get me started on the <redacted>-poor "POSIX compliant" implementation of the basic UNIX utilities (Give me GNU or give me death!). > > BFN. Paul. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- We all have skeletons in our closet. Mine are so old, they have osteoporosis. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
