Separate members let me do foreground assemblies. Separate members let me have multiple assembly jobs for the same source code differing in, e.g., SYSPARM. ...
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Schmitt, Michael <00001e13e9d4753a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 3:03 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> Subject: Re: Is HLASM efficient WAS: Telum and SpyreWAS: Vector instruction performance External Message: Use Caution Really? I think it is a great thing you can do. I mean, I don't use it for anything in production or the real system, but in three use cases: 1. I have a job I use to test COBOL syntax. This job contains the COBOL source, and runs the standard compile-link-go proc. So, my steps to change the source, compile, link, run, are just one step: change source, submit. 2. I create self-contained utility jobs, where I'm using COBOL rather than some language that is typically from SYSIN, such as Sort, Easytrieve, or whatever. Again, the job compiles the COBOL and links it. This is not for jobs where I'm writing once and running many. It is more for ad hoc work where I'm spending a lot of time writing it (and so need the compile-link-run cycle to be fast, and then only run it once in awhile. 3. I create self-contained jobs to send as test cases to IBM to illustrate a problem. Such as, I needed to prove a Language Environment bug, so I created a single member that contains 3 assembler programs and a COBOL program. The job assembles and compiles everything, links, executes. Then just send that one job to IBM. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 1:29 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Is HLASM efficient WAS: Telum and SpyreWAS: Vector instruction performance While I'm not a big fan of JCL and source in the same member. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Ian Worthington <00000c9b78d54aea-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 2:21 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> Subject: Re: Is HLASM efficient WAS: Telum and SpyreWAS: Vector instruction performance External Message: Use Caution This, more or less, one of my ISPF EDIT bête noires. I'm not a fan of the JCL in this PDS, source in that PDS, etc separation of members, preferring to keep my PDSs function related so I can then rapidly hop from one member to another when performing a task. The price I pay for this blasphemy is ISPF constantly doing irritating things with the profile. Best wishes / Mejores deseos / Meilleurs vœux Ian ... On Wednesday, August 27, 2025 at 08:01:20 PM GMT+2, Paul Gilmartin <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote: On 8/27/25 07:00, Phil Smith III wrote: > I'm missing something--what's wrong with the comments being mixed case? Other > than them getting folded to uppercase, maybe, when you make changes? But how > is that such a problem? > ... An IBM-MAIN reader complained that (my) mixed comments changed (his) ISPF setting to CAPS OFF and he had to issue a command to change it back to ON! -- gil
