On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:19:46 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >>It's more complicated than that. > >To begin wth, well coded assembler routines will use DYNALLOC >directly. > Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Which do you consider correct, to DALPERM or not to DALPERM, or should interfaces such as ALLOCATE and BPXWDYN provide an option.
I hate MVS. Its surfeit of features is not offset by the usefulness they provide. I suspect much of the complexity of DYNALLOC arises from an attempt to contend with a storage constraint now to be regarded as ridiculously small. Allocate DDNAMEs; free them when you're done with them. What if you exhaust TIOT entries? Well, DYNALLOC will pick some to reuse. What if you really needed them? Well, DYNALLOC lets you set a flag on those which are not to be reused. And so on. UNIX has a limit, OPEN_MAX, vaguely similar to DYNAMNBR. If I attempt to more files than that, open() fails. There is no option allowing the kernel to pick some files to close and proceed. Simpler Is Better. How seriously do DOS and UNIX users miss the ability/need to specify RECFM, LRECL, BLKSIZE, etc. on their files? --gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
