I like the idea of following the MINIOPT model and extending it to LINK, CPU, CRYPTO, SPECIAL, DEDICATE and now the COMMAND(?) statements.
Do you think the CLASS, OPTION and SPOOL statements also require comments ? /Tom Kern On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:26:14 -0500, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >Then you have never set up guest crypto. :-) Unlike you, I have tended >to have far more comments on LINKs than on MDISKs, since I care more abo ut >*why* a user is linking rather than *what* is on the disk. > >> I would also like the minidisk comment statement to immediately preced e >MDISK, >> not follow it. > >MINIOPT already established the precedent of a statement that adds >information to the previous statement. It was my intent to keep that >model, but provide a more generally useful function. Further, I most >especially didn't want to compromise the syntactical integrity of existi ng >statements. > >And if one has a LINK to an MDISK, and both have COMMENTs, then I expect >both to be displayed. > >As to QUERY MDISK, it could be done of course, but QUERY VIRTUAL has the >advantage of being able to handle all virtual devices, not just MDISKS. > >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott >======================== ========================= ========================
