On 11/4/2006 10:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Gilbert Saint-Flour said:
How do you invoke GIMSMP from an exec ? Via CALL ? LINKPGM?
CALL. I had thought it had to be CALL for AUTHPGM to work.
Correct. REXX (via LINKPGM or LINKMVS) can not cause a program to run
APF
My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course)
without Hercules or PSI machine. So, it is not good excuse
for denying software for PSI machine owners.
a) I don't see the connection.
b) That isn't the excuse in any case.
In fact, IBM has not said in public what its response to
Shmuel
Another exhausting post from what can only be deliberate misunderstandings.
The nursery rhyme Mary, Mary, quite contrary comes to mind every time I
see one of those characteristic stand-alone Nos. But this time the boot is
most definitely on the other foot - see later - and you can have
- Original Message -
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, 03 November, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Assembler question
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/03/2006
at 09:44 AM, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shmuel
Comment is embedded.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, 03 November, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Assembler question
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/03/2006
at
Glen
At the time the suggestion to use the AR instruction as a packed decimal 1
arose, the workshop was discussing a package that had to fit into 4K and
it was getting very, very close to the limit. Saving just one byte was worth
the effort - and ingenuity.
Having had to dreg this item from my
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Moulder
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to
run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes
firmware loaded at IPL time to
I have been reviewing the STP documentation and I am not able to find much
information on the External Timer Source (ETS). It is documented in the
STP Planning Guide, but there are few details.
I am planning to install a small Z9 BC next month and I would like to have
an ETS for the
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:37:50 +0100, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I was commenting on the following instruction:
MVC M1CC-1(L'M1CC+1),=X'402120202020' MOVE IN EDIT MASK
I will now make my point in words of one syllable so it cannot be
misunderstood. Now there's a challenge.
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an
RS/6000.
US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997)
Birger Heede
IBM
Phil Payne wrote:
My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course)
without
I posted this on the web site on Friday but haven't received any response
(sorry for the impatience and for the double post). I'm not sure if it's
getting distributed correctly or if it's just that nobody likes me :-(
I'm seeing a situation where my full volume dump tapes are not being
Have you checked the EDM options in TLMS?
Daniel McLaughlin
Z-Series Systems Programmer
Crawford Company
4680 N. Royal Atlanta
Tucker GA 30084
phone: 770-621-3256
fax: 770-621-3237
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.crawfordandcompany.com
This transmission is intended exclusively for the
Thanks for your comments. I have look at the user program. It is a Cobol
program which calls some type of assembler access program. I have told the
programmer to track down the source if possible and review the condition
code handling code. Thanks
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Moulder
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
snip
Upgrades have always been an issue in the z environment,
now
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:31:06 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK wrote:
a) IBM didn't have a clue how much power an Amdahl (or any other pocessor)
had. Amdahl (and I
was part of the process) declared its processors to IBM.
Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me. But IBM
Birger,
Was this the old R/390 follow-on to the P/390?
Bob Richards
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Birger Heede
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Phil
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COND CODE 3592
Thanks for your comments. I have look at the user program. It
is a Cobol
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
snip
What stops you from using z/OS on large z/Series machine
without
Birger Heede wrote:
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an
RS/6000.
US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997)
Can we say Phil knows nothing about mainframe machines ?
Not good as for consultant.
Yes, I have the EDM options in TLMS in place. They appear to work properly
because all the backup tapes get scratched ok. It just seems to be the FV
dump tapes that aren't being scratched.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nigel Hadfield
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The PSI Letter V4
snip
ISTR there was a perception at that time that IBM could not legally
refuse
Nobody like you! (Just kidding)
Have you set a high RETPD for that dump class?
DFSMShsm does not automatically delete the last and only remaining copy
of a source volume. The dump volumes that make up this dump copy remain
in EXPIRED status. To determine which dump tapes are currently in
Chris Phinicarides wrote:
I need to have a batch RPG program (say A) call another batch RPG program
(say B) and be able to change program B and have program A execute
using the modified program B, without the need to re-compile/link-edit
program A.
More specifically, the need is to have
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:57:40 -0500, Gilbert Saint-Flour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Phinicarides wrote:
I need to have a batch RPG program (say A) call another batch RPG program
(say B) and be able to change program B and have program A execute
using the modified program B, without the
Tom
Regarding the more substantive point, we'll have to agree to disagree.
When you changed the instruction similar to
MVC M1CC-1(L'M1CC+1),=X'402120202020' MOVE IN EDIT MASK
you needed to recode the literal and, in doing so, you were very much aware
of the length of the literal . Thus
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:14:15 +1000, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have
mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less
than 2G makes no sense.
Seems a lot of people
Tom
I forgot to mention before a case among the examples offered in the thread -
specifically, to give credit where credit is due, from Mr Metz himself in
person - where use of the length attribute in the instruction *does* offer
some assistance to, say, a newbie, in understanding what is going
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:31:18 +0100, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Regarding the more substantive point, we'll have to agree to disagree.
ok.
I would never code an address reference with a negative offset like this so
I have no experience of the expressions of this type - maybe I've
These aren't the last copies if I understand that concept. I have the the
tape deletion value set at 28 days. The LIST DVOL shows volumes that are
expired (older that 28 days) and unexpired. I can manually DELVOL the
expired volumes, but I don't understand why they weren't deleted by DFHSM
and
snip--
I need to have a batch RPG program (say A) call another batch RPG program
(say B) and be able to change program B and have program A execute using
the modified program B, without the need to re-compile/link-edit program A.
More
Bob
My ann ltr reference was not actually to the first announce of the P/390
card (just a ref. I had 'close by'). I actually thought we (IBM) used
R/390 for the RS/6000 version and P/390 for the PC Server version - but
this ann. ltr. did not. I checked one of the redbooks on the subject and
Can we put this whole thing to bed, please?
We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can
license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please.
The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable
does not negate the point that IBM may have
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Birger Heede
Bob
My ann ltr reference was not actually to the first announce
of the P/390 card (just a ref. I had 'close by'). I actually
thought we (IBM) used R/390 for the RS/6000 version and P/390
for the PC
In a recent note, Walt Farrell said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:08:24 -0500
On 11/4/2006 10:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Gilbert Saint-Flour said:
How do you invoke GIMSMP from an exec ? Via CALL ? LINKPGM?
Is there any reason you suggest LINKPGM rather than
I would not like you to conclude that.
Phil's memory is much better than mine (whether his is hardened on
external storage or not). So if he knows nothing where does that leave me?
Birger Heede
IBM
R.S. wrote:
Birger Heede wrote:
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 2:00 PM
You have an instream proc in your JCL, and that takes precedence over
IEFPDSI.
What do you mean by precedence over IEFPDSI? The member was found in
AMEN, Brother!
Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
11/06/2006 11:40 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Can we put this whole thing
Hello All,
When entering the command (make -v) with no ( ) in USS to check for
functionality I get the error below. Can anyone point me in the right direction
to the solution. Thanks Matt
ST1MAT:/: make -v
Defined macro MAKECMD=make
Defined macro MFLAGS=
Defined macro
On 6 Nov 2006 08:40:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can
license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please.
The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable
does not negate
Tom Marchant writes
I learned that ORG stood for Origin and LTORG was Literal Origin.
'LTORG' in fact stands for Literal [Pool] Origin. This tread has been
transmogrified into a [tedious] discussion of HLASM programming techniques,
and it therefore belongs on the HLASM list, not here.
Matt Dazzo wrote:
Hello All,
When entering the command (make -v) with no ( ) in USS to check for
functionality I get the error below. Can anyone point me in the right direction
to the solution. Thanks Matt
ST1MAT:/: make -v
Defined macro MAKECMD=make
Defined macro MFLAGS=
In a recent note, Matt Dazzo said:
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
When entering the command (make -v) with no ( ) in USS to check for
functionality
I get the error below. Can anyone point me in the right direction to the
solutio
...
make: Error --
A little bit of effort has even enabled me to recall the author of - nearly
all - of the 4K DOS spooling package, one Jim Shields, Mr. DOS in the
Wigmore Street IBM UK Field Systems Centre around 1968.
I believe I remember him.
He could almost make DOS DITTO talk. One of the things he knew
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
The system closes DCBs at end-of-task.
I had been unaware of such task ownership of DCBs.
But I suspect that somehow SMP/E (or perhaps IEBCOPY)
is completing without closing some DCB.
A task doesn't own a DCB per se, but DEBs created by OPEN are placed on a
are there conditions where a pe'd ptf is not sup'd but instead marked per
by the correting ptf ? a 3rd party software vendor is attempting to make
this business as usual and I'd rather they stuck to convention. What's to
prevent regression of the fixing sysmod without regressing the pe'd ptf?
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:14:21 - Phil Payne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Maybe the program was converted from VSE which, in the days when it was
:DOS anyhow, used an SVC macro to end the job.
:So, effectively, does z/OS. ISTR that R14 in a jobstep programme points
:directly at an SVC 3
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:47:58 -0600, Joseph W. Beiter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are there conditions where a pe'd ptf is not sup'd but instead marked per
by the correting ptf ? a 3rd party software vendor is attempting to make
this business as usual and I'd rather they stuck to convention. What's
On 11/6/2006 11:52 AM, Greg Shirey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 2:00 PM
You have an instream proc in your JCL, and that takes precedence over
IEFPDSI.
What do you mean by
In a recent note, Walt Farrell said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:34:40 -0500
On 11/6/2006 11:42 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Walt Farrell said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:08:24 -0500
On 11/4/2006 10:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Gilbert
Phil Payne wrote:
Maybe the program was converted from VSE which, in the days
when it was DOS anyhow, used an SVC macro to end the job.
So, effectively, does z/OS. ISTR that R14 in a jobstep programme points
directly
at an SVC 3 instruction.
It points at CVTEXIT, which contains a
In a recent note, Tom Marchant said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:07:15 -0600
Suppose PTF X includes modules A and B. It becomes PE. The code
in B is ok, but the code in A needs to be replaced. The vendor
then has two choices. Either SUP X with a PTF Y containing A and
B or provide
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Walt Farrell
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:09 PM
What do you mean by precedence over IEFPDSI? The member was found in
IEFPDSI.
Are you sure it wasn't found in IEFJOBS rather than IEFPDSI?
Fairly sure - we
Thanks Steve
Use an upper case V: make -V
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
As the customer would still have PTF X installed I assume the outcome
depends on how the exploitation in PTF X is implemented - a hard
dependency would probably cause another problem to show up?
Birger Heede
IBM
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Tom Marchant said:
Date: Mon,
...But the vendor fails to declare the dependency...
Point right on. This is the vendors responsibility no? Else who/how to
protect the integrity of the maintenance chain? The customer?
My original post was to try to understand other conditions where this
would be necessary as a standard way
ISTR that R14 in a jobstep programme points
directly at an SVC 3 instruction. You used to be able to tell if you were
the jobstep programme by looking at that.
An ATTACHed subtask also gets an R14 that points to the SVC 3 (EXIT) in
the CVT, so your test for jobstep task was never valid.
--
In a recent note, Joseph W. Beiter said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:56:17 -0600
...But the vendor fails to declare the dependency...
Point right on. This is the vendors responsibility no? Else who/how to
protect the integrity of the maintenance chain? The customer?
If you're
Is it practical to use RMFPM or the Spreadsheet Reporter to trend
performance over weeks and months??
Does anyone have any tips or tools for trending the typical performance
metrics??
We don't have the budget $$$ for SAS...so MXG is not an alternative
I'm also looking for some tool to
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:56:17 -0600, Joseph W. Beiter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...But the vendor fails to declare the dependency...
Point right on. This is the vendors responsibility no? Else who/how to
protect the integrity of the maintenance chain? The customer?
Yes, it is the vendor's
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:06:56 -0700, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It would be possible always to SUPersede, but in the case where
an error in a large SYSMOD can be corrected by a smaller SYSMOD,
I consider the minimalist approach prudent.
Indeed, sometimes PE chains get very long and
ISTR that R14 in a jobstep programme points
directly at an SVC 3 instruction. You used to be able to tell if
you
were
the jobstep programme by looking at that.
An ATTACHed subtask also gets an R14 that points to the SVC 3 (EXIT)
in
the CVT, so your test for jobstep task was never valid.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COND CODE 3592
Phil Payne wrote:
Maybe the program was converted from VSE which, in the
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:45 -0600, Tom Grieve wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here - what's the point of a 64-bit product
that doesn't use 64-bit storage? Do you think maybe it should check to see
if there's no 64-bit and use 31-bit instead? Why introduce such complexity
when there is
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Assembler question
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:37:50 +0100, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just looking at SYS1.SAMPLIB(GIMASAMP), I see:
* Top of Data ***
*
* Licensed Materials - Property of IBM
* 5694-A01 5655-G44
In a recent note, Shane said:
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:24:37 +1000
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 11:31 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
... but received no definitive answer, possibly because Shane asked
Kurt not to reply.
Did I just ???. My post was specific to the wish for a
OS/390 2.7, approx. March 1999
Don Imbriale
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:38:18 -0700, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just looking at SYS1.SAMPLIB(GIMASAMP), I see:
* Top of Data ***
*
* Licensed Materials - Property of IBM
* 5694-A01
Sorry to answer my own post, but I have now found an even earlier reference
in OS/390 2.4.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:56:36 -0600, Don Imbriale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OS/390 2.7, approx. March 1999
Don Imbriale
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:38:18 -0700, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just
Group,
I'm performing an OS upgrade z/OS 1.4 to 1.7. I'm getting ready
to define Aliases for those entries in user catalogs and I've found a
HLQ that was never defined. All entries for this HLQ are in the Master
Catalog.
My plan was to uncatalog all entries and delete the GDG bases
Use the IDCAMS REPRO MERGECAT function followed by the DEFINE ALIAS command.
Also you should have a copy of RCNVCAT from file 434 of the CBT tape. Makes
life a lot easier for this kind of work.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:59:16 -0800, Strudwick, Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Group,
I'm
Why not REPRO MERGECAT the entries from your master. When that is done, all
you would need is to define your ALIAS.
Larry Crilley
Dino Software, Corp.
http://www.dino-software.com/
412.734.2853
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Hi John,
I'm not sure which release of ExHPDM you have installed, but in the V3.0
ExHPDM Operator and System Programmers Guide on page 225, it describes
the ExHPDM Stream Selection Options.
I suspect from your request below that you are intending to produce a
report of streams that were created
all previous snipped
Because there have been all sorts of notes on COBOL and setting the COND
CODE (if RETURN-CODE) hasn't been cleared, I thought I would post a
reference to:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3pg31/4.2.4.1
Now, I will admit that I could be
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:56:44 -0500, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
... so your test for jobstep task was never valid.
...
Never? A chalange to pedantic readers.
How about for all those recursively invoked routines that could also be
executed as a main task. You could know when to stop
Thanks Matthew and Larry, Repro Mergecat worked great.
I appreciate your input.
Martin
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Crilley
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Catalog
As far as I know, all currently available z/OS releases (that include LE)
support object code created by all IBM PL/I compilers. For some
information, check out:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ceea2170/1.1.1
for those compilers that REQUIRE an LE run-time.
For
Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
How about for all those recursively invoked routines that could also be
executed as a main task. You could know when to stop unwinding when R14
pointed at the SVC. (Ok. No such program was ever written. But it
coulda.)
Are you sure? I once wrote a very small program:
It was introduced in OS/390 1.3. Performance was not optimal.
Bob
Don Imbriale wrote:
Sorry to answer my own post, but I have now found an even earlier reference
in OS/390 2.4.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:56:36 -0600, Don Imbriale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OS/390 2.7, approx. March 1999
Don
Pat
I think you're correct; it's a matter of style. Probably the programmer is
abiding by some sort of house rule that says if you can't rely upon the
referenced variables to provide the correct length then use the length
attribute in order to show the relationship between the length of the
I did indeed find the version identifier where you said it would be in
DFSRRC00. Problem solved. Thank you, particularly Mark!
Still, let me wonder why a built-in function doesn't do this instead,
something like DB2's CONNECT, PL/I's SYSVERSION or LE's CEEGPID (or some
standardized equivalent)?
Hi all,
Our shop want to find a gobal solution to manage the mainframe and open
platform disk management. for example capacity planning, disk usage,
monitoring, management/SAN...
any shop have experience to share or reommend...
many thanks
Tommy
I donnot understand the parameter MODE in GTF after I read the parameter
explaination. Could u make me more clearly and give me recommendation how to
use it? How much size and where for trace table in vitual storage for MODE=INT
MODE=DEFER, as you know GTF region just vary from 832k to 2880.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:02:59 -0600, Bill Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I will admit that I could be mistaken, but I think that not clearing
the registers impacts the system RETURN CODE (RC) and NOT the CONDITION CODE
(COND CODE).
Same thing. See for example the description if IEF142I and
Hi,
I am going to migrate from Z/OS V1.4 to V1.7, we have two independent systems
TEST and PROD, each system has its own datasets and volumes, but we keep the
same VOLSER names for both right now as example we use for CAT volume two
different VOLSER using the same nane ZOSCAT.
I am thinking to
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:04:23 -0500 Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
:On Tuesday, 11/07/2006 at 03:29 CET, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:wrote:
: I think you're correct; it's a matter of style. Probably the programmer
:is
: abiding by some sort of house rule that says if you can't rely upon
85 matches
Mail list logo
