This makes me wonder if there is a "need" for a QPAM-like package to be written for the CBT.
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:26 AM Joseph Reichman <reichman...@gmail.com> wrote: > Steve > > Maybe you are right ? > > > > Joe Reichman > 170-10 73 rd ave > Fresh meadows NY 11366 > > > On May 1, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Steve Smith <sasd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It sure seems like QPAM would have been an obvious void that IBM could > have > > filled many decades ago -- but I for one would rather write a de-blocking > > routine than an RFE. > > > > sas > > > >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 PM Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> You can't do a GET after a FIND because GET is a QSAM macro (MACRF=G) > and > >> FIND is a BPAM macro (MARF=RP). Deblocking is a facility of QSAM, not of > >> BPAM or BSAM. You might submit an RFC to IBM for a Queued Partition > Access > >> Method, but you'll need a business case. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
