On Sat, 3 May 2014 23:09:01 -0600, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On 2014-05-02, at 12:04, Jousma, David wrote:
As for your question, my suggestion is to instead of using IEBUPDTE
statements, is to copy the entire source program, and make a SMPE
Replacing an elegantly automated
On Sat, 3 May 2014 23:09:01 -0600 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
:On 2014-05-02, at 12:04, Jousma, David wrote:
: As for your question, my suggestion is to instead of using IEBUPDTE
statements, is to copy the entire source program, and make a SMPE usermod out
of it with your
On Sun, 4 May 2014 09:10:57 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
If an ISV, i.e., not IBM, did this, there would be calls to change vendors.
IBM should be treated equally and their feet should be held to the fire. Of
course, there may be an unintended consequence of OCO.
Yet I hear no calls to change
I think this might be APARable. Its worth a try.
Ed
On May 2, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Phil Sidler wrote:
At one time I set up IEBUPDTE (or SMP/E USERMOD ++MACUPD) jobs to
update some IBM sample programs before I used them to make it
easier to tell what was updated from the supplied source and
On 2014-05-02, at 12:04, Jousma, David wrote:
As for your question, my suggestion is to instead of using IEBUPDTE
statements, is to copy the entire source program, and make a SMPE usermod out
of it with your changes added to it(sufficiently documented, of course).
We already do this
At one time I set up IEBUPDTE (or SMP/E USERMOD ++MACUPD) jobs to update some
IBM sample programs before I used them to make it easier to tell what was
updated from the supplied source and possible make migration to new releases
easier. Now, going to a new CICS release, the sample programs no
It doesn't break compare. Just tell compare to ignore the sequence numbers
(SEQ).
Jon Perryman.
From: Phil Sidler phil_sid...@hotmail.com
At one time I set up IEBUPDTE (or SMP/E USERMOD ++MACUPD) jobs to update some
IBM sample programs before I used them
On Fri, 2 May 2014 09:35:35 -0700, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
It doesn't break compare. Just tell compare to ignore the sequence numbers
(SEQ).
That's SuperC? I don't see that option in the ISPF EDIT/VIEW COMPARE command.
Both SUPERC SUPERCE support SEQ. For edit command COMP, you'll need to
allocate DD SYSIN to a dataset containing the SEQ option and specify the SYSIN
option on COMP. It's silly that IBM ignores the edit bounds but such is life.
Jon Perryman.
From: Phil
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IEBUPDTE alternatives
On Fri, 2 May 2014 09:35:35 -0700, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
It doesn't break compare. Just tell compare to ignore the sequence numbers
(SEQ).
That's SuperC? I don't see that option
On Fri, 2 May 2014 10:18:08 -0700, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
Both SUPERC SUPERCE support SEQ. For edit command COMP, you'll need to
allocate DD SYSIN to a dataset containing�the SEQ option and specify the SYSIN
option on COMP. It's silly that IBM ignores the edit bounds but such
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Phil Sidler
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IEBUPDTE alternatives
At one time I set up IEBUPDTE (or SMP/E USERMOD ++MACUPD) jobs to update some
IBM sample programs before I used them to make it easier to tell what was
updated
12 matches
Mail list logo
