In <[email protected]>, on 02/09/2013
at 02:41 PM, Gerhard Postpischil <[email protected]> said:
>I suspect you misread the "rant". It had nothing to do with
>linkage conventions, and you have failed to specify why you
>consider it unreasonable.
Has anybody submitted such a requirement to IBM? If not, it might be
worthwhile, although it would be better to make the wording more
general so that IBM doesn't claim that it's specifying a particular
implementation.
>The OP asked for an ATTACH parameter;
I hope that by OP you mean Paul; Scott didn't mention ATTACH.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
