On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:23:19 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > ... >Makes my head spin. What was IBM thinking? It is beyond me why one would want >to use one versus the other. I can envision a test case where they behave >differently, but what is the situation where you would actively want to use >one rather than the other? When would you want to use a command that was not >COPY but in your particular situation behaved just like COPY? > Might be history. IBM is loath to change an earlier behavior, no matter how adverse, lest some programmer, somewhere, has come to depend on it.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:35:41 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >Got it! Not sure exactly what the key ingredient was but I suspect that the >problem was that I had @Gil's un-externally-named entry point: > >BAR DS 0D >... > END BAR > >I changed that to >BAR DS 0D > ENTRY BAR > END > If either IEBCOPY or INCLUDE -ATTR fails to propagate an entry address, even so bizarrely generated, IBM should take an APAR. Of course, for compatibility they'd feel compelled to invent a new option and preserve the old default. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
