> What could be done in a script that couldn't be done by typing individual > commands at the command line?
The fact remains that you chose to invoke aa script rather than typing individual lines at the command line. BTW, I can type individual REXX statements if that's what I want to do, but it rarely is. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ICEGENER to the rescue again? On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:34:48 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: >On 06/26/18 08:23, John McKown wrote: > >> All this can be done from a UNIX shell, > >No, a shell script invoked from the shell. > What could be done in a script that couldn't be done by typing individual commands at the command line? I value the "UNI" in "UNIX". I take it to mean "UNIform". I can use the same language for interactive commands, scripts, and batch. I slightly forgive JCL for having antedated any perceived need for live interaction. > > thus _proving_ that the UNIX shell is more powerful than the standard >> TSO environment. > >No, REXX is part of the standard TSO environment. > They're equivalent. Rexx can invoke UNIX commands via ADDRESS SYSCALL; shell can Rexx scripts which ADDRESS TSO. Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job." -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
