On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, at 16:57, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:45:53 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> >How would it be useful if it did? Which load module library is going to > >contain a CLIST or REXX exec? > > > I stand half corrected. Four line later, in text you trimmed: - which I trimmed because it also seemed to relate to a load-module search sequence, for CALL - how could that be relevant? > >The deficiency of EXec is that it does not use the standard load module > >search sequence for the member name. Someone should submit an RFE > >for support of > > EXec *(blah) > >to use the standard exec search sequence for the member name similar > >to what was do[n]e for CALL within my memory: ... I don't see how you half-defend writing rubbish like "The deficiency of EXec is that it does not use the standard load module search sequence" by saying it's ok because you followed it with another vague (load-module related) statement about CALL. I know my knowledge is long out of date, but doesn't EXEC already search either SYSPROC or also SYSEXEC depending on the setting of EXECUTIL SEARCHDD(YES) or does that only affect implicit (ie %thing) calls? -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
