le
> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> robin...@sce.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:10 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (Ex
ers) and
press enter.
I have no idea if this would address the actual reason the RFE was opened.
Frank
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 11:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Two new RFE
Dang it, I wasn't. From the RFE: " An output field should be protected
while still allowing tabbing to it. "
This is why I hate to admit being wrong. Just wind up having to do it
again.
sas
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I was off-base with the tabs to protected
I was off-base with the tabs to protected fields. I typically use tabs for
point & shoot, and forgot about the other ways.
ISPF already has an option to allow/disallow tab to point & shoot fields.
I usually have this set off, as I don't really use point & shoot much.
Habits developed in the 80s,
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek)
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
Please consider supporting these RFE's
://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek)
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
Please consider supporting these RFE's that I just
: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
Isn't #1 impossible? From what I've retained (or think I have) of 3270
programming, a "tab" is merely the start of an unprotected field. Catc
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 9:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:53 +, Dyck, Li
@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
Gil wrote:
>Does 3270 protocol require that PAS fields be writable, therefore tabbable?
>Bad design. It's perfectly reasonable to want to specify a read-only PAS
>menu item. (Too few bits in the attribute byte?)
I've
Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
> Does 3270 protocol require that PAS fields be writable, therefore tabbable?
Bad design. It's perfectly reasonable to want to specify a read-only PAS
menu item. (Too few bits in the attribute byte?)
I'm no expert in the 3270 protocol, but I don't
> Does 3270 protocol require that PAS fields be writable, therefore tabbable?
Bad design. It's perfectly reasonable to want to specify a read-only PAS
menu item. (Too few bits in the attribute byte?)
I'm no expert in the 3270 protocol, but I don't think PAS is described in the
architecture.
> Not all that difficult to do using standard 3270 orders: SBA to the screen
location; SF to start an unprotected field. Immediately SF to start a
protected field. I'm fairly certain this will allow TAB to go the the
0-length unprotected field which precedes the protected field. If not,
nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 7:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:00:29 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek)
AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:00:29 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) wrote:
>Those fields in SDSF are probably PAS fields but you don't see that as the
>panels are more than likely dynamic in nature (I
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:00:29 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) wrote:
>Those fields in SDSF are probably PAS fields but you don't see that as the
>panels are more than likely dynamic in nature (I don't run SDSF so I can't
>check that).
Similarly, the ISPF Primary Option Menu uses
une 22, 2018 6:51 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:32:54 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:13:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>>Correct. You cannot tab to a protected field
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:32:54 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:13:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>>Correct. You cannot tab to a protected field. And I suspect that a request
>>for an update to the 3270 protocol is not likely to be fulfilled at this
>>point.
>>
>Reading the
ers
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 6:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
On 22/06/2018 9:32 AM, Paul Gilmartin wr
On 22/06/2018 9:32 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:13:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
Steve Smith wrote:
Isn't #1 impossible? From what I've retained (or think I have) of 3270
programming, a "tab" is merely the start of an unprotected field.
Catch-22.
Correct. You
IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Two new RFE's to consider supporting
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:53 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) wrote:
>Please co
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:23:28 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>On 6/21/2018 6:47 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>That's funny! Of course, there is no such things as a "point and shoot"
>field in 3270! LOL!
>
>The notion of "point and shoot" hinges entirely on how the 3270
>application in question chooses to
On 6/21/2018 6:47 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
Gil wrote:
Does 3270 protocol require that PAS fields be writable, therefore tabbable?
Bad design. It's perfectly reasonable to want to specify a read-only PAS
menu item. (Too few bits in the attribute byte?)
I've done lots of 3270 programming,
Gil wrote:
>Does 3270 protocol require that PAS fields be writable, therefore tabbable?
>Bad design. It's perfectly reasonable to want to specify a read-only PAS
>menu item. (Too few bits in the attribute byte?)
I've done lots of 3270 programming, but am unaware of what a point-and-shoot
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:53 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) wrote:
>Please consider supporting these RFE's that I just submitted:
>
>ISPF Point and Shoot Protected Fields
>
>https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=121576
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:13:21 -0400, Phil
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:53 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) wrote:
>Please consider supporting these RFE's that I just submitted:
>
>ISPF Point and Shoot Protected Fields
>
>https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=121576
>
No need to change the sematics of . Use
Steve Smith wrote:
>Isn't #1 impossible? From what I've retained (or think I have) of 3270
>programming, a "tab" is merely the start of an unprotected field.
Catch-22.
Correct. You cannot tab to a protected field. And I suspect that a request
for an update to the 3270 protocol is not likely
Isn't #1 impossible? From what I've retained (or think I have) of 3270
programming, a "tab" is merely the start of an unprotected field. Catch-22.
sas
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
Please consider supporting these RFE's that I just submitted:
ISPF Point and Shoot Protected Fields
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=121576
And
Improve ISPF 3.17 by allowing CD on the command line
28 matches
Mail list logo
