The convention for the past 15 years or so has been first two letters of
first name and first four letters of last name. So you'd probably be
sts...@sas.com. For collisions, I think it goes to three and three, so
possibly ste...@sas.com. You could always try to bribe somebody to be
sas...@sas.com
I asked the question based on the Auth. Ass. Services Guide... later on, I
looked at the Diagnosis Ref., which says that the 230s are allocated in the
250s. Ah well, it was only idle curiosity anyway.
If I got a job with SAS, would my email be s...@sas.com? Or sas...@sas.com?
UGH. Better stay
In article
you wrote:
> In sorting through the Rubik's Cube that is the subpool selection charts,
> it appears to me that 233-235 are defined exactly the same as 253-255
> respectively. Is there some difference I'm missing?
>
In sorting through the Rubik's Cube that is the subpool selection charts,
it appears to me that 233-235 are defined exactly the same as 253-255
respectively. Is there some difference I'm missing?
sas
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
>>A key reason for the last is so that someone can use LSQA for an SRB
that
>>is not associated with a TCB, for which you might not want private
storage
>>obtained by the SRB to be freed just because some task terminates.
>Seems like a weak reason. Are there other ways SRBs are protected from
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:52:15 -0400 Peter Relson wrote:
:>>>Since LSQA is System Private Storage how come there isn't a TCB
:>associated
:>>>with it
:>>Who said there isn't?
:>VSM said so.
Because VSMLIST is not examining the correct control blocks, As Jim Mulder
stated, "
>>Since LSQA is System Private Storage how come there isn't a TCB
associated
>>with it
>Who said there isn't?
VSM said so.
LSQA, as shown in the subpool table in the books, has a variant that is
associated with the current task, one that is associated with the jobstep
task, and one that is
in Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 07/31/2017 02:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about VSMLIST and LSQA
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
>
> It appears that VSMLIST is documented as not returni
y, July 30, 2017 2:53 AM
:>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:>Subject: Re: Question about VSMLIST and LSQA
:>
:>On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:48:24 -0400 Joe Reichman <reichman...@gmail.com>
:>wrote:
:>
:>:>Since LSQA is System Private Storage how come there isn't a TCB associ
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Question about VSMLIST and LSQA
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:48:24 -0400 Joe Reichman <reichman...@gmail.com>
wrote:
:>Since LSQA is System Private Storage how come there isn't a TCB associated
:>with it
Who said there isn't?
--
Binyamin
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:48:24 -0400 Joe Reichman wrote:
:>Since LSQA is System Private Storage how come there isn't a TCB associated
:>with it
Who said there isn't?
--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software,
11 matches
Mail list logo