Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: cms parameters

Expand Messages
  • kerravon86
    ... I ve now tried this with an EXEC on z/VM. I don t appear to be getting an EPLIST under any circumstances. Unless I make it a REXX instead. I ve tried
    Message 1 of 76 , Nov 1, 2008
      --- In hercules-os380@yahoogroups.com, "kerravon86" <kerravon86@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In hercules-os380@yahoogroups.com, "kerravon86" <kerravon86@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > 2. Only for &CONTROL NOMSG
      >
      > Scenario.
      >
      > For some reason I have a script that needs to run
      > &CONTROL MSG.
      >
      > So I won't have an EPLIST (even on z/VM?).

      I've now tried this with an EXEC on z/VM. I don't
      appear to be getting an EPLIST under any circumstances.
      Unless I make it a REXX instead.

      I've tried &CONTROL MSG, &CONTROL NOMSG, &CONTROL

      None of them give me an EPLIST. Real z/VM.

      What gives?

      BFN. Paul.
    • kerravon86
      ... Well upward compatibility is a goal of z/VM too. And in a case of real people, real cases , someone complained that their personal BASSM macro, which
      Message 76 of 76 , Jan 14, 2009
        --- In hercules-os380@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wade <g4ugm@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Although you have to ask what "370" actually means
        > > now. With filenames now allowed to have underscores
        > > in them etc, it's long stopped being the 370 from
        > > IBM, with the various restrictions that that entails.
        > >
        >
        > But it should still be 370+. Nothing that works in 370 should
        > fail on this

        Well upward compatibility is a goal of z/VM too.

        And in a case of "real people, real cases",
        someone complained that their personal "BASSM"
        macro, which worked fine under OS/370, fails under
        OS/380 (just as it would under OS/390). So some
        people presumably want to keep the 370 concept.
        But then, the same thing will happen for people
        who used to be able to type:

        myexec xyz

        and get "XYZ" sent through, and are now getting
        mixed case. So EPLIST breaks things too.

        > but its missing lots of things in SEP & BSEP,
        > never mind SP...

        Right. So it's always going to be a fork. The
        question is how many different forks are required,
        and what should they be called? IBM didn't bother
        maintaining an old 370+ for people who wanted
        their BASSM macros to continue to work. So does
        it serve any purpose maintaining both a 370 and
        a 380 version? (ignoring any issues such as Fujitsu
        wanting their own fork for non-technical reasons).
        I had always intended to simply graft any
        "unaccepted-into-370" 380 code on top of the 370
        version so that it was always a superset. For both
        CMS and MVS.

        But do note that the number of people who run
        Hercules/380 is much less than the number who run
        Hercules. So some portion of OS/380, most notably
        GCC, will simply not work unless measures are taken
        to protect against that (measures which I haven't
        bothered taking since I didn't really expect to
        take over the normal 370 development). And I don't
        really want to be involved in all the 370 decisions
        either. E.g. how many disks should be defined, what
        type, what user names, which software versions
        should be installed, etc etc. My interest is
        incremental improvements to PDPCLIB and spreading
        it and GCC across the remaining mainframe platforms
        (DOS/VS, MUSIC/SP). Plus porting other software
        to the mainframe (e.g. bwbasic) - and releasing
        just the source code, not executables.

        BFN. Paul.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.