I agree, but since we are stuck with what we have, how about
Alan's suggestion, a front end:
SFSMODFY EXEC:
/* REXX exec to front end MODIFY */
/* Syntax: SFSMODFY <filespace> <blocks> */
ARG fspace blocks . '(' options
ADDRESS COMMAND 'MODIFY USER' blocks 'FOR' fspace '(' options
EXIT RC
Would that be easier to remember? :-)
As a matter of fact, I think I will download it at work
tomorrow ! (I hope I haven't made any mistakes in the syntax here)
Shimon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:01:39 -0800
>From: "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: new VSMDCSS in z/VM 5.4
>To: [email protected]
>
>I always tell the new users that HELP is the single most
important
>command in VM. The problem with some commands is that I have
to use HELP
>almost every time I use them.
>
>I remember once, I don't remember whether it was in a
discussion of SFS
>commands or those of VMSES, but it could easily been the
MODIFY USER
>command, drawing a parallel between ordinary English and the
syntax of a
>particular command that went like this:
>
>Suppose you are having a large family dinner, say for a
family reunion
>or holiday. You would like some potatoes, but they are at the
opposite
>end of the table. In normal conversation you would say,
"Please pass the
>potatoes." If you were to make the same request using the
suggested
>syntax, the request would be, "For the potatoes please pass." My
>conclusion was that the suggested syntax was something that
only a
>mother camel could love. There is certainly nothing gained in
elegance,
>conciseness, preciseness or clarity by phrasing it that way.
>
>I realize that SFS and VMSES have been in use too long for
the command
>syntax to change. It has been years since I read Strunk and
White's
>"Elements of Style", but that book ought to be made required
reading for
>anyone who is going to create a command syntax or commands
for others to
>use. The principles appropriate for clear communication do
apply.
>
>Analyzing the MODIFY command to determine what is meaningful
or needed
>would go something like this:
>
> MODIFY - Needed to convey the action to be taken.
> USER - There is only one form of MODIFY, so this is a
>useless word. Furthermore, it is misleading.
> blocks - Needed.
> FOR - Not required, simply a place holder and not a
>very good one at that.
> filespaceid - Required, and not necessarily a userid.
>
>The remainder of the command can be left out of the
discussion as it is
>optional information.
>
>This leaves us with a command consisting of the three
elements MODIFY,
>blocks, and filespaceid. The next question is, "Does the
order matter?"
>I would submit that it probably does, that the order imparts
meaning.
>For example, you are modifying the parameters of the filespace by
>allocating or adding blocks to it, not modifying a number that
>represents a subset of blocks in a file pool. The most
meaningful order
>is to have the thing being modified follow the word "modify".
That
>would give us a command that looks like this: "MODIFY filespaceid
>blocks". If you feel that a noise word is needed, then
perhaps something
>like "MODIFY filespaceid BY blocks"; however, the noise word,
being
>nothing but noise, should be optional.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Richard Schuh
>
