Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

, June 07, 2017 2:03 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx Well now I am thoroughly confused. I am looking at Init & Tuning and those do not appear to be valid PROGxx statements. What am I missing? I see LNKLST ADD in I but not SETPROG LNKLST,ADD -- that's a con

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jousma, David Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 10:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx That is exactly one of the uses! EDIT SYS1.PARMLIB(PROGDJ) - 0

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

AIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:29 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx Easy for you and me to redesign MVS retroactively but yes, your point is well-taken. It would seem that for the same effort as Set PROG= IBM could h

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

alf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:03 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx On 5/16/2017 5:46 AM, Charles Mills wrote: >> only dumb developers > I like you too, Tom. I thought we were friends. Perhaps he was referring to the IBM developers that ma

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

On 5/16/2017 5:46 AM, Charles Mills wrote: only dumb developers I like you too, Tom. I thought we were friends. Perhaps he was referring to the IBM developers that made MVS SET commands sometimes work additively and sometimes as full replacement. LOL -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote: >Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >> >This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a >> >developer with nearly zero sysprog experience. >> This is not a dumb question. Only wise people ask questions! ;-) >No, wise people are here to answer

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht > Sent: 16 May, 2017 15:15 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx > > Charles Mills wrote: > >

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

Charles Mills wrote: >This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer >with nearly zero sysprog experience. This is not a dumb question. Only wise people ask questions! ;-) >Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I >assumed that

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

ame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Conley Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx On 5/15/2017 7:25 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a >

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

On 5/15/2017 7:25 PM, Charles Mills wrote: This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer with nearly zero sysprog experience. Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I assumed that PROGxx + PROGyy in the parmlib concatenation

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

E3 88 81 95 92 40 A8 96 A4 5A Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 4:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:26 PM

Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a > developer > with nearly zero sysprog experience. > > Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I > assumed that PROGxx +

Effect of SET PROG=xx

This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer with nearly zero sysprog experience. Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I assumed that PROGxx + PROGyy in the parmlib concatenation *totally replaced* the contents of whatever PROGaa