> The grouping and indentation syntax format historically used in macro-book
> syntax diagrams obviously leaves a lot to be desired. Agreed. So much so that I confess I pay less attention to them than I might, and skip straight to the Parameters section. My bad. > Are you using shared-common? That is the intent. My goal is something "like ECSA, only bigger." Am I not on the right track? > I'm not actually sure at all in what way AFFINITY applies to storage > obtained by REQUEST=GETCOMMON. Maybe that's where the books led you > astray. > What is misleading is the description of the AFFINITY keyword. The > description for AFFINITY could/should be significantly changed/improved. Agreed. My proposed RFC was for the description of AFFINITY. > Do you really need AFFINITY for V64COMMON? Do you mean "logically does MVS need to be told AFFINITY for V64COMMON?" or "does the macro need AFFINITY for V64COMMON?" If the former, then you would know better than I <g> but I suspect not; if I understand things correctly it should effectively be forced to AFFINITY=SYSTEM. If the latter, then yes, definitely, the macro gives an MNOTE if not. > Perhaps the first should be > -- Nonshared non-64-Bit Common memory objects are affected only by AFFINITY LOCAL. Is "affected only by" the right phrase? Should it be "require the specification of"? As I said, this is my first IARV64 rodeo. I would never presume to tell you how IARV64 works. If you will tell me, I will submit an RFC. Thanks, Charles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
