On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:27:06 -0500, John McKown wrote:
I will chime in with my _opinion_ that now is the time to start using a
STG to an AD field. It is a cheap way to future proof your program for
when IBM finally allows RMODE(64). Unless, like someone I knew back in the
Amen. And all new
Would you guys stop PUNishing us!
Original message
From: Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca
Date: 08/12/2015 6:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Calendars and political parties was Re: Leap (was: LOADING An AMODE64
Program)
On 12 Aug 2015 11:08:19
On 08/11/2015 01:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:37:30 -0500, Joel Ewing wrote:
Encyclopedia Britannica is complicit in the confusion to this day by
incorrectly implying in their Leap Year entry that in addition to the
divisible by 4, 100, 400 rules there either is or
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:05:20 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
On 12 Aug 2015 11:08:19 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Leave it to the Republicans!
In the case below, the issue has nothing to do with any branch of the
United States of America Republican Party being French.
cf.:
(Please don't post (or reply) with Subject: ... Digest)
On 2015-08-12, at 08:42, Charles Mills wrote:
Why not 360? Or 512?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:19:04 -0500, Joel Ewing wrote:
365 31/128 is within one second of the mean tropical year; closer even
than the 4000-year rule.
Amazingly, if you do the math, the result of a 4/128 year rule is
mathematically identical to the average days/year of a
4/100/400/3200-year
Leave it to the Republicans!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Leap (was: LOADING An AMODE64 Program)
(Please
It is clearly wrong to capture the 4-byte result of LOAD and then use LLGF
if the module can be AMODE 64.
And, yes, the 8-byte GR0 can be used in all cases (the high half not being
relevant unless AMODE 64).
As I had mentioned, the result of LOAD is suitable for use with BASSM and
thus for
John McKown wrote:
Unless, like someone I knew back in the 1970's who didn't want to calculate
leap years at run time. So she had a hard coded table in her program. It went
up to her planned retirement date.
Why? Is she crazy, bored, lazy or what? To fix dates for leap years are just a
few
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is clearly wrong to capture the 4-byte result of LOAD and then use LLGF
if the module can be AMODE 64.
And, yes, the 8-byte GR0 can be used in all cases (the high half not being
relevant unless AMODE 64).
As I had
Regarding my post:
Sorry, wrong list...
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Did she realize 2000 was not a leap year?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
As a multiple of 400, 2000 was a leap year. 2100, 2200, and 2300 will not be.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jon Butler butler@gmail.com wrote:
Did she realize 2000 was not a leap year?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
One of the things that became obvious in the Y2K discussion groups by
1999 was that the general public is not very good at understanding leap
year exception rules, especially ones that neither they, nor several
generations of their ancestors, have ever witnessed. It ran all the way
from some
/
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Joel Ewing
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LOADING An AMODE64 Program
One of the things that became obvious in the Y2K discussion groups by
1999
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:37:30 -0500, Joel Ewing wrote:
Encyclopedia Britannica is complicit in the confusion to this day by
incorrectly implying in their Leap Year entry that in addition to the
divisible by 4, 100, 400 rules there either is or should be a 4000-year
exception rule:
...For still
It was -- divisible by 400.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: Jon Butler
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:16
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: LOADING An AMODE64 Program
Did she realize 2000 was not a leap year
17 matches
Mail list logo
