Stream I/O is part of ANSI REXX, and AFAIK Regina is ANSI compliant.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday,
SAY is equivalent to WRITE, not to WRITENR. Under OMVS you can use CHAROUT.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Lionel B. Dyck [lbd...@gmail.com]
Sent:
REXX has stream I/O in OMVS but not in TSO·
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent:
1. Built in functions - REXX has some but not all
2. CLOSFILE -use EXCIO or STTEAM
3 Control Variables
4. CONTROL
5. DATA
6. DATA PROMPT
7. GETFILE -use EXCIO or STTEAM
8. GLOBAL
9. NGLOBAL
10. OPENFILE -use EXCIO or STTEAM
11. PROC
12. PUIFILE -use EXCIO or STTEAM
13. SYSREF
Dunno what it's called; that's why I described it the long way :).
I've written lots of REXXes that can be called either as a TSO command or an
ISPF Edit macro, and vary their behavior depending. Not sure I've ever had one
call itself that way. I can see the advantage, though...I think. At
Right, not quite the same thing. I mean, SAY and PULL display a prompt and
then fetch a response, alright, but they don't do it on a single line, as
WRITENR does.
Don’t think I ever noticed CHAROUT. Is that part of TSO REXX? I think I've
seen it in Regina.
---
Bob Bridges,
On 17/09/2021 9:12 am, Joe Monk wrote:
"These are not necessarily unique for z/OS unix work due to the reuse of
the BPXAS initiators. Even if you include the timestamps, they are not
granular enough to give uniqueness."
Well you wouldnt use just those records for BPXAS ... there are others like
"These are not necessarily unique for z/OS unix work due to the reuse of
the BPXAS initiators. Even if you include the timestamps, they are not
granular enough to give uniqueness."
Well you wouldnt use just those records for BPXAS ... there are others like
74? that are written for BPXAS...
Joe
On 17/09/2021 3:22 am, Joe Monk wrote:
I dont understand the problem. On the type 30 record, there are the
following fields in the identification section, the location of which can
be found in the header (SMF30IOF, SMF30ILN):
Offset 0, Length 8 - Job Name
Offset 8, Length 8 - Program Name
On 17/09/2021 6:35 am, Michael Oujesky wrote:
Might these be not "broken", but continuation records?
"Broken" is the terminology used in RMF for records with continuations.
Possibly not the best description, maybe "deliberately disassembled" :-)
or just "split" would be better.
--
Andrew
Gil wrote on 09/16/2021 04:13:24 PM:
> You might make your code more robust (and easier to review) by coding"
> Const.ASCII =XRANGE( '20'X, '7E'X')XRANGE( 'A0'X, 'FE'X')
> and using CSNBXEA to compute Const.EBCDIC. (I added the top half
> of ISO-Latin.) What about control characters,
That's a lot of questions but I will answer some of them.
Gil wrote on 09/16/2021 03:52:06 PM:
> What does a "HASH" have to do with a "seed"? Isn't a hash algorithm
> such as SHA-1 deterministic, repeatable, so that (e.g.) CSNBOWH will
> produce the same result for a given message every time?
Might these be not "broken", but continuation records? For example.
when TYPE30 records have more DD segments than will fit in a record,
continuation records are written with some sections of the TYPE30
omitted in the continuation records. However, the identification
section is present in
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:58:17 -0400, Eric D Rossman wrote:
>CSNBXEA uses a default translation table that probably doesn't match the
>code page that your REXX exec is encoded in.
>
>If you SAY "ASCII in hex: "||C2D(text_ASCII), I suspect you will not see
>the same values as I pasted.
>
You might
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:12:06 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>I am not sure I really understand but wouldn't the web site be computing the
>hash on the ASCII representation of ABCabcAB12345678 while the mainframe would
>be computing the hash on the EBCDIC representation of ABCabcAB12345678? Those
CSNBXEA uses a default translation table that probably doesn't match the
code page that your REXX exec is encoded in.
If you SAY "ASCII in hex: "||C2D(text_ASCII), I suspect you will not see
the same values as I pasted.
For my testing, I used something like:
Const.ASCII =,
Hello again and thanks Eric and the others for all the answers, but we
still have problems. :(
Here is what we did in REXX.
First we imported the "secret key" and then we calculated the HMAC.
We converted the secret key to ASCII ( " ABCabcABCabcABC12345678901234567")
The text to ASCII ("Hola
I dont understand the problem. On the type 30 record, there are the
following fields in the identification section, the location of which can
be found in the header (SMF30IOF, SMF30ILN):
Offset 0, Length 8 - Job Name
Offset 8, Length 8 - Program Name
Offset 16, Length 10 - Step Name
Offset 32,
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 08:14:51 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
>For CLIST WRITENR why not use the REXX SAY and then PULL ?
>
I don't believe that's equivalent. Are you conflating WRITENR and WTOR?
But the Rexx analogue of WRITENR is CHAROUT().
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:02:13 -0400, Bob Bridges
For CLIST WRITENR why not use the REXX SAY and then PULL ?
Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck
"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are." - - - John
I can think of three features off-hand:
CLIST's PROC statement, of course, offering some convenient ways of
interpreting arguments. I've gotten used to doing without it, parsing one
word at a time and interpreting it in context with or without argument names
(ie "NAME(VALUE)"). In fact that
Martin,
And I can't assume the broken records will be consecutive; no other
interspersed records.
Can I assume that the same dispatchable unit will produce the 3 records in
the correct order ?
Then I have uniqueness.
Regards, Pierre.
If it's RMF you have the re-assembly area. If it's SMF 30 you have a
similar mechanism. But this isn't architected by SMF. And you're right the
granularity is 1/100th of a second.
Martin Packer
WW z/OS Performance, Capacity and Architecture, IBM Technology Sales
+44-7802-245-584
email:
Martin,
Hence my original post.
I have 3 "broken" records.
I use the type,subtype, date and time in the SMF header to create a unique
value relating the 3 records.
But the time is only in 100ths of seconds.
I don't think it's granular enough.
Is there something extra I can
Hello Tony,
I could found the memebr ATBTPVSM.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Toyokazu Kobayashi
- Original Message -
From: "Cieri, Anthony" <02d7f4ec1fff-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:17 PM
25 matches
Mail list logo
