From what little I remember going over the code I suspect that a lot of TEST uses TPUT which I belive is not capturable . I *THINK* TSO Session manager does its part of TSO and its free so why not use the great product?
Ed > On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:19:04 +0000, J R wrote: > >> "I believe OUTTRAP catches lines written by PUTLINE(?) but not by TPUT. >> Why must there be two of them? If TPUT must be retained for comaptibility, >> couldn't it be made simply a wrapper for PUTLINE, providing uniform >> behavior?" >> >> TPUT is specifically for terminal output. PUTLINE is more generalized and >> issues TPUT if the current output is destined for the terminal. >> > It should be the other way around. Shmuel on occasion mentioned (e.g.): > https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ibm-main;e78c1cac.1306 > >> What went wrong? > > It started early: George Mealy is alleged to have called it "The rape > of the design integrity of OS/360" and blamed it on a lack of > standards enforcement. > > By the OS/360 paradigm, TSO should have written to SYSTSPRT and > read from SYSTSIN, which could have been allocated to TERMINAL for > interactive sessions or other data sets for logging. A subsystem could > have been provided to "tee" SYSTSPRT to both TERMINAL and another > data set for interaction with logging. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
