In , on
11/02/2009
at 05:21 PM, "van der Grijn, Bart (B)" said:
>As far as I'm concerned everyone has the right to use whatever reply
>prefix they want
There is an Internet convention to use "re: " in replies, regardles of
local language, and to not prepend re: if it is already there. There i
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För P S
> Skickat: den 3 november 2009 15:56
> Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Berg
> wrote:
>
> >
My apologies if this has been discussed in the past, but as someone that
groups his IBM-Main inbox by Subject I want to point out the following:
http://www.trilithium.com/johan/2005/06/re-outlook/
As far as I'm concerned everyone has the right to use whatever reply
prefix they want and I don't ev
At 18:14 +0100 on 11/02/2009, Thomas Berg wrote about SV: SV: An
Alternative Modest PARM Proposal:
As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
longer parms than 100 bytes, among them IBM module apparently,
that's the problem that needs to be solved.
Not exactly on th
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:16:42 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
>
>*BUT*, we still we have the problem of backward incompatibility
>regardless of the input format...
Not if the PARM is stored in memory the same way it is today: A fullword
parameter address with the high order bit set to 1. That word point
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Paul Gilmartin
> Skickat: den 2 november 2009 20:56
> Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:45:43 +0100, Thomas Berg wro
Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> > [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Berg
> > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:15 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> > Subject: SV: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
> >
> > But obviou
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Tom Marchant
> Skickat: den 2 november 2009 18:42
> Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Ämne: Re: SV: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:14:38 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
>But obviously not a *backward* compatibility problem ?
>And the main problem here, as I have understood the
>discussion, is the limit of 100 bytes through JCL PARM.
>And that is sort of "another format" as I see it.
>
>As the problem is (old?)
On 2 Nov 2009 09:19:45 -0800, thomas.b...@swedbank.se (Thomas Berg)
wrote:
>As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
>longer parms than 100 bytes, among them IBM module apparently,
>that's the problem that needs to be solved.
>So we cannot avoid a somewhat ugly change of the JCL
But obviously not a *backward* compatibility problem ?
And the main problem here, as I have understood the
discussion, is the limit of 100 bytes through JCL PARM.
And that is sort of "another format" as I see it.
As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
longer parms than 100 bytes
11 matches
Mail list logo
