Really? I'm puzzled. You don't like that the explanation is "what does it mean" and that the action is "what to do"?
The intent (and I do not claim that that intent is realized in enough cases) is surely - whoever sees the abend information (this will usually be a user, might be an operator) reads the explanation - they read the action and take the action (which might be to contact someone else) - repeat until you've reached the right party. It must be relatively infrequent that the person who gets the abend (and thus is the first to see the abend) is the system programmer. It might well be that the user who did get the abend doesn't do what they're supposed to do (as evidenced by the 0C7 example), but they did see it first. I actually think in the S0077 case that the system programmer responses for 003C and 003D belong instead within programmer response. If a programmer did something wrong that they need to fix (whether that is an authorized or unauthorized programmer), then that belongs within programmer response. As to the point about ISV's and abend codes: ISV's do not write what is thought of as "the system". They are not in general supposed to issue system abend codes (although some codes are reserved for use by owners of non-system SVCs). It seems that a good part of the hang-up is thinking that "user" in this case necessarily means, for example, some unauthorized TSO user running a program. It doesn't. It more closely means not-the-IBM-provided-system. Could it have been defined differently 50 years ago? Sure. I'd guess that LE came in similarly as "not the system". It is rare that unauthorized code (as LE originally was) would use system completion codes. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
