On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:26:17 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >> ?That doesn?t apply to ?true?, though, right?? >> ?Of course not, use some common sense.? > >That would require the knowledge of /bin/true to be common sense, which I >doubt. I like the idea of help being available even for what might look like >an obvious command to some. > Agreed. And "IEFBR14" is far less "common sense" than "true". So, where does IBM document IEFBR14. Utilities? No, those are largely "IEB" prefix. A brief search turns up several documents that mention use of IEFBR14, but none that officially specify it. It shouldn't default to "That's common knowledge," as an IBM employee has here attempted to justify absence of documentation of another z/OS facility.
I note that in one GNU Linux, /bin/true respects "--help" and "--version"; builtin true does not. This violates POSIX, which requires the behavior to be the same. (But GNU Linux doesn't claim to be POSIX.) On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:20:58 -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/10/line_break_ep2/?page=2 > >If you read down to the bottom, you'll understand why the cognoscenti (such as >I, snerk snerk) live on OpenBSD, not Linux. > Maybe. In fact, that's a call back to the shell builtin, which: o May involve extra overhead of fork()/exec(). o Should (POSIX requires) running the user's $ENV script, which may have side effects that violate the specification of the function. Many (I count 17) z/OS utilities are implemented as such callbacks. My $ENV (sometimes, for testing) issues messages. That's contrary to the specification of "true". One more thing to PMR when I'm in a bad mood. IIRC, OS X has a tweak that performs the callback without invoking the $ENV script. (I use ":" instead of "true") -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
