Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

The full text was "This command lists all files that it lists." Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 12:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: RCF v

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

Paul Gilmartin wrote, re "all means all": >One might make a similar assertion about "ANY". But, in fact, "AMODE(ANY)" >doesn't >mean "ANY", and few complain. Yeah, I don't remember the exact context, but it was clearly inclusive, something as simple as "This command lists all files..." - that d

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:53:03 -0800, Phil Smith wrote: > >The most egregious old-time incident I remember is a time when the doc for >something said "all" and the Change Team was claiming that in this one case >that didn't apply. I found myself saying, "'ALL' means ALL!" and then >wondering why I

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

Paul Gilmartin wrote, in part, re "definitely not your father's IBM!": >That depends. Forty years ago, IBM could afford to be more arrogant. >They felt they were entitled to define or ignore the standards. OK, but they didn't ignore things like this. You're taking my comment as a unilateral "old

RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

John Eells (ee...@us.ibm.com) wrote: >I forwarded this on to the C compiler team, who retrieved your PMR from the >dusty archives and determined it was a Language Environment problem. >Apparently it got passed to them and they do see a problem, but >then...well...you kn

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:51:35 -0500, John Eells wrote: >I forwarded this on to the C compiler team, who retrieved your PMR from >the dusty archives and determined it was a Language Environment problem. >... >In any event, the Language Environment guys are a bit horrified that >this happened. > So

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

I forwarded this on to the C compiler team, who retrieved your PMR from the dusty archives and determined it was a Language Environment problem. Apparently it got passed to them and they do see a problem, but then...well...you know what happened in the end, and I think the contributing factors

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

On Feb 17, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Phil Smith III wrote: Paul Gilmartin wrote: They say is has been accepted as a clarification. They've not provided details in response to a followup request.) Hey, at least you got that much—I opened a SEV2 against a math function in C that was returning

RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

Paul Gilmartin wrote: >They say is has been accepted as a clarification. They've not >provided details in response to a followup request.) Hey, at least you got that much—I opened a SEV2 against a math function in C that was returning incorrout on true 64-bit values (i.e., values where the t

Re: RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Lizette Koehler wrote: >>Though I am not a fan of Knowledge Center, the one element they provided is >>the ability to ADD COMMENTs to the section. If you feel it is lacking >>details, you should be able to supply additional comments. >I wish that in such cases IBM Pubs

RCF vs. COMMENT (was: IGW01595E message ...)

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:28:39 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Though I am not a fan of Knowledge Center, the one element they provided is >the ability to ADD COMMENTs to the section. If you feel it is lacking >details, you should be able to supply additional comments. > I've done that, at times.