Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Martin wote: >I'm not familiar with FANOUT but if it writes a record to, say, two destinations, it's got to copy one of them. Actually not. I know it sounds like magic, but there is still only one copy. I'll give you my best rendition of what I think is happening. Don't worry if you don't get

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 08:01:27 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >Mike wrote: >>Could something be developed similar to a SORTOUT exit that implements >this switch? >BatchPipes fittings are like sort exits on steroids: They can be applied >to almost any DD, ... > SORTWKnn? A problem posed earlier was to

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Phil, thanks again for the helpful feedback and the great food for thought. Your point is well taken. I'll try to break it down as best I can: MIPS or CPU usage, main memory or working set, and input/output operations. (I'd be happy if someone else has better information.) MIPS is dependent

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Mike wrote: >Could something be developed similar to a SORTOUT exit that implements this switch? BatchPipes fittings are like sort exits on steroids: They can be applied to almost any DD, can use most Pipes filters, do not require compiled code, and they are not restricted to a single program. I

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:30:43 +0100, Martin Packer wrote: >I'm not familiar with FANOUT but if it writes a record to, say, two >destinations, it's got to copy one of them. > It could be deferred; Copy-on-Write, optimizing for what Hobart earlier calledd the "typical case" of stages that don't

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) I misplaced the original post, but somewhere in this thread someone commented that checkpointing is less important. I think I disagree, so just a quick comment from me. Yes, absolutely, there's much more computing power

Re: [IBM External] The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

://anchor.fm/marna-walle Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: "Timothy Sipples" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 23/09/2021 05:27 Subject:[IBM External] The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Val

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

e: 23/09/2021 04:18 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) Sent by:"IBM Mainframe Discussion List" Paul said: > I'm guessing the atypical case is a stage such as FANOUT which nece

The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

I misplaced the original post, but somewhere in this thread someone commented that checkpointing is less important. I think I disagree, so just a quick comment from me. Yes, absolutely, there's much more computing power and much better I/O. There are also lots of efficiency gains -- much

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

arc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 22/09/2021 03:50 > Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS > Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) > Sent by:"IBM Mainframe Discussion

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

n the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) Sent by:"IBM Mainframe Discussion List" On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:14 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >If a SORT (or other similar temporary data store) program is one of >the pipe programs, when the EXEC PGM

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 16:26:59 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >... >For those who don't know, in the typical case, a record passes through all >possible stages before the next record begins the same trip. Each record >stays in the working page set, at least partially, during the entire time. >Parts

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Yes, I was not aware of the subsystem idea and was just throwing out an idea. On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:14 PM Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:30:32 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: > > >How about > >//ddname DD DISP=(NEW,DELETE,DELETE),

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:30:32 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >How about >//ddname DD DISP=(NEW,DELETE,DELETE), >// DCB=(DSORG=PS[only],RECFM=F/FA/FM/V/VA/VM/U?/UA?/UM?/[no B]),BLKSIZE=n), >// PIPES=(PROGNAME,'100/32k byte parm to select or modify records', >// ddname1,ddname2,...,ddnameN), >and the

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:14 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >If a SORT (or other similar temporary data store) program is one of >the pipe programs, when the EXEC PGM= program closes the output file >then the program holding the data needs to output the stored data to >output ddnames (pipe or output

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

If a SORT (or other similar temporary data store) program is one of the pipe programs, when the EXEC PGM= program closes the output file then the program holding the data needs to output the stored data to output ddnames (pipe or output files). On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:25 AM Mike Schwab wrote:

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Oh, and PIPES=(program,'parm',ddname1,ddname2,ddnaen) the ddname1 gets as input the one record written to the //ddname DD PIPES ddname. On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:30 PM Mike Schwab wrote: > > How about > //ddname DD DISP=(NEW,DELETE,DELETE), > //

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

How about //ddname DD DISP=(NEW,DELETE,DELETE), // DCB=(DSORG=PS[only],RECFM=F/FA/FM/V/VA/VM/U?/UA?/UM?/[no B]),BLKSIZE=n), // PIPES=(PROGNAME,'100/32k byte parm to select or modify records', // ddname1,ddname2,...,ddnameN), and the OPEN (ddname,OUTPUT) loads the PIPES program in (sub)task

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:10:16 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >So, in a sense, instead of pipes, the programs could be modified so >that instead of outputting a record, call the next program passing the >record as input. > No. Rather than requiring every utility to be modified in order to use the

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Hobart Spitz wrote, in part: >This is a great comment. I hadn't given that much thought to the question. >Not to split hairs, but I didn't say MIPS, I said hardware. >If I had to guess, MIPS usage might actually increase slightly, because the >Pipes dispatcher has to switch between stages

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

So, in a sense, instead of pipes, the programs could be modified so that instead of outputting a record, call the next program passing the record as input. Could something be developed similar to a SORTOUT exit that implements this switch? On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 4:27 PM Hobart Spitz wrote: > >

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Phil; This is a great comment. I hadn't given that much thought to the question. Not to split hairs, but I didn't say MIPS, I said hardware. If I had to guess, MIPS usage might actually increase slightly, because the Pipes dispatcher has to switch between stages twice for every record that is

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:20:04 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >If portability is an issue then we need ANSI stream I/O in all REXX >environments. If we had that we wouldn't need EXECIO for new code. > It's ironic. The z/OS Rexx interpreter supp

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Hobart Spitz wrote, in part: >The case *for *Pipes in the z/OS base.: > 2. Hardware usage would drop for customers. >From IBM's perspective, that might not be a positive argument. It should be-they're hopefully not fooling themselves that they have a lock on enterprise computing any more, so

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

+1 for this idea. DJ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:20:04 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >If portability is an issue then we need ANSI stream I/O in all REXX >environments. If we had that we wouldn't need EXECIO for new code. > It's ironic. The z/OS Rexx interpreter supports ANSI stream, but only under OMVS. I wonder

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Spitz Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 12:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) Thank you for your relevant and helpful comments. They are very much appreciated, as I omitted some topics

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 11:53:18 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >... >Concerning EXECIO: > - Pipes can read from or write to either a DD or a dataset. z/OS EXECIO > can only use a DD. > o Can that DD be allocated to a UNIX file, with FILEDATA any of BINARY, TEXT, or RECORD? o Is it savvy to

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 11:53:18 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >... >Once you have Pipes you don't need or want EXECIO. ... > At times the effort of converting existing art outweighs the benefit. And POSIX pipes are portable to desktop systems; CMS/TSO Pipelines is not. > - Pipes can read

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

Thank you for your relevant and helpful comments. They are very much appreciated, as I omitted some topics. I'll do my best to address them here. Pardon the lack of brevity. Concerning EXECIO: Yes, the z/OS and z/VM EXECIO versions are mostly incompatible. Once you have Pipes you don't

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:21:25 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: >EXECIO is not supported the same between z/os and CMS. This is a pain. > Yes. What are your specifics. Mine include: o Lack of the VAR and, especially STRING, options, requiring extra code. Is that an accommodation to syntactic

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:56:15 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >... > 15. Is consistent with policies for combating global warming of > customers, vendors and the public. ... > OK. But 40% of the U.S. electorate would consider that an argument "against". Think of the environmental impact of

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

On Behalf Of Hobart Spitz Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 3:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?) IMHO, the Business Cases on Pipes in the z/OS Base are as follows. (Pipes is already availab

Re: The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

EXECIO is not supported the same between z/os and CMS. This is a pain. GLOBALV probably needs porting to solve other problems. I was tempted to do that on the last project I was on where we had REXX working between the two platforms. Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd

The Business Case for Pipes in the z/OS Base (was: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?)

IMHO, the Business Cases on Pipes in the z/OS Base are as follows. (Pipes is already available as part of BatchPipes.) The case *for *Pipes in the z/OS base.: 1. Development costs would drop for customers, vendors, and IBM, since everyone could use Pipes in their software. 2. Hardware

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Interpret is great for parsing tokenised values like parmlibs, jcl etc.. (DSN=xxx for example. I use value when the right field contains special characters or is lengthy. ITscahk בתאריך יום ו׳, 17 בספט׳ 2021 ב-16:54 מאת Brian Chapman : > Years ago I used INTERPRET often, and I too switched to

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Years ago I used INTERPRET often, and I too switched to VALUE. There's still one use case that I still use INTERPRET, and that's for 'passing' many variables (most of which are stem) between programs. This program reads an input dataset that contains all of the variable names that should be

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 4:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:56:42 +, Seymour J Metz wrote

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of CM Poncelet [ponce...@bcs.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 05:50:13 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: >z/OS REXX does have a PIPES but it is only available currently as part of >SmartBatch (or is it BatchPipes). > >There is an RFE asking for PIPES for TSO that is the highest voted RFE at the >moment with 237 votes. >

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

1 6:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? I do most of my rexx on VM, but on VM we have a method to directly read and update a callers variables (as long as both are REXX) using the pipe stages VAR and VARLOAD. Just looking at the z/OS manuals,

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

In REXX, "ARG [template]" is just a short form of the instruction "PARSE UPPER ARG [template]". Hence INTERPRET on passed ARG variables produces uppercase results (unless PARSE ARG is coded instead of ARG).   There is no REXX equivalent to CLIST's "CONTROL CAPS ASIS".   CLIST:

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

t we don’t WANT them, but IBM so far has chosen not to port them to z/OS. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 22:34:04 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Tony, > >z/OS TSO Rexx has no pipes, only CMS has them. > >Not that we don’t WANT them, but IBM so far has csosen not to port them to >z/OS. > In fact: z/VM CMS Pipelines

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? I do most of my rexx on VM, but on VM we have a method to directly read and update a callers variables (as long as both are REXX) using the pipe stages VAR and VARLOAD. Just looking at the z/OS manuals, it looks like you have

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

I do most of my rexx on VM, but on VM we have a method to directly read and update a callers variables (as long as both are REXX) using the pipe stages VAR and VARLOAD. Just looking at the z/OS manuals, it looks like you have the same option in z/OS. Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Still don’t get it. When the malefactor runs the program with malicious data to be interpreted, with the result of doing something dangerous, it isn't the iNTERPRET statement that enabled it; the hacker could have written the program to do it himself. If you mean ~I~ run a program (under my

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

I've inherited responsibility for a huge REXX app that uses that technique to pass many values back and forth between external routines. Each module has two routines, one for packing up a list of variables and another for unpacking them at the other end. I find it difficult to understand, but

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:56:42 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >No, the evaluation of the operand is the same as for any other expression and >the interpretation of the evaluated operand is the same as for any other >statement in REXX, including the treatment of apostrophes and quotation marks: >

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of CM Poncelet [ponce...@bcs.org.uk] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 7:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:04:20 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote: >I meant IIRC INTERPRET returns the lowercase values of variables in >uppercase. > Again, not so. INTERPRET returns values of variables ASIS. For example: V = 'Value of V' interpret 'x = V' say X shows: Value of V >AFAIK

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

I meant IIRC INTERPRET returns the lowercase values of variables in uppercase. AFAIK "ALLOCATE DD(SYSIN) DSN(*)" is not in *CLIST* format - and I have no idea what that would have to do with preserving lowercase chars. A *CLIST* format would be something like "ALLOC FI(SYSIN)

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:48:11 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote: > ... >Yes, IIRC INTERPRET returns everything in uppercase > It definitely does not. If you were able to try: interpret 'X = ''Mixed Case''' say X you would see: Mixed Case > ... - whereas CLIST's "CONTROL CAPS ASIS"

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

FWIW I attach what happens with REXX's INTERPRET vs CLIST's &&... (but from memory, as I've had no access to a mainframe for 8+ years)   AFAIK, REXX's INTERPRET can handle only up to 3 or 4 levels of nesting - as in INTERPRET (INTERPRET (INTERPRET etc.)) or similar - whereas CLIST can retrieve the

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:18:45 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote: > >But I keep thinking about the possibilities for malice in any tool I write for >public use, and worry about it. I can't think of any examples, because as >Itschak points out below, it's always going to run under the perpetrator's own

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 06:44:44 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: >From a programming standpoint which is (a) more efficient, and (b) easier to >understand - Interpret or Value. > >Examples: > >/* rexx */ >/* setup our defaults to start with */ >istr = 'abc' >vstr = istr > >/* value examples */ >newvar

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

bend like that. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:16 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? My main use case for interpret is passing back a string

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

I use INTERPRET here and there, but pretty rarely. About the only program with it that I use all the time is something I call "EV" (for "evaluate), that acts as a sort of ad-hoc calculator: parse arg v1 interpret 'v2='v1 say v1'='v2 Thus I can say on any ISPF command line "tso ev

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: "ITschak Mugzach" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 13/09/2021 14:43 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? Sent by:"IBM Mainframe Discussion List&

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

> > That’s why I’ve switched. > > Gary Freestone > Kyndryl Australia > > > Sent from Mail for Windows > > From: Lionel B. Dyck > Sent: Monday, 13 September 2021 9:45 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? > >

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

I’ve switched. Gary Freestone Kyndryl Australia Sent from Mail for Windows From: Lionel B. Dyck Sent: Monday, 13 September 2021 9:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? >From a programming standpoint which is (a) more efficient, and (b)

Re: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Lionel B. Dyck [lbd...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 7:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better? >From a programming standpoint which is (a) more efficient, and (b) eas

REXX - Interpret or Value - Which is better?

>From a programming standpoint which is (a) more efficient, and (b) easier to understand - Interpret or Value. Examples: /* rexx */ /* setup our defaults to start with */ istr = 'abc' vstr = istr