Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Bob Bridges Wrote "Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move not actually a copy? And how?". I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > move not actually a copy? And how? > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood > by everyone, something that no one ever knew beforein poetry, it's the > exact opposite. -Paul Dirac */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of David Crayford > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what > > you are calling a COPY. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
This reminds me of a very old story (begin of 1990s). I once had to write a translator for a report generator language (not RPG, but similar), which was in use on Polish ODRA computers (ICL clone). The target language was COBOL. After some weeks of work, I delivered the first version. The "customers" (a team of programmers of another company) tested it and after some days responded like this: "very fine, very fine. BTW: is it possible that the subtractions all show the wrong sign?" It turned out that I generated SUBTRACT A FROM B GIVING C for C := A - B much the same way as ADD A TO B GIVING C for C := A + B not realizing that this is correct for ADD (sequence of operands doesn't matter), but not for SUBTRACT :-) BTW: the translator still exists; it is written in Pascal, but I guess, nobody uses it today. The report generator language is not bad; IMO, this would be a very smooth method to build COBOL reports (of course, some work needs to be done, for example, the language has some system variables with Polish names, this should be fixed). Kind regards Bernd Am 18.07.2020 um 10:42 schrieb Wayne Bickerdike: IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Where does FTP server F DEBUG= write its data?
Our also goes to syslogd to the file pointed to by: daemon.debug /path/filename In /etc/syslog.conf -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Using NTP
tor 2020-07-16 klockan 07:28 + skrev Gadi Ben-Avi: > Hi, > > I was asked to make sure that the mainframes are using the same time > source as the rest of the computers on our network. > I know what the NTP servers are in our network. > > In the HMC, I found 'Customize Console Date/Time' > I added the NTP servers to the screen, and they seem to have been > accepted. > (I did this for our DR computer) > > Do I have to do anything else? > > We are currently running z13s's if that matters. > You need at least three time sources, the more the better. The time sources you have, what stratum are they at (stratum = how far from a time source which they are.) Verify that your organization's time sources is independent of each other (a lot of people fails at that...) Can the CPC be a time source for other system ie can it be a server in ntp parlance ? Can the CPC be added as a peer ? Would it be feasible to run the z13s as time servers in a peering agreement which each other ? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 02:30:33 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote: >Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move >not actually a copy? And how? > POSIX shell: mv old/path/name new/path/name --gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > move not actually a copy? And how? > > -Original Message- > From: David Crayford > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what > > you are calling a COPY. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Oh. Um. Hm. I certainly wasn't thinking of a shell command that manipulates files and folders as part of an algorithmic language. Not sure I'm willing to cede that point; it's a different thing, surely? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 10:13 > POSIX shell: mv old/path/name new/path/name --- On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 02:30:33 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote: >Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move >not actually a copy? And how? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
I was so disappointed to find out that this thread was not about a new Object Oriented COBOL. (And yes, I know the joke about that.) On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:54 AM Bob Bridges wrote: > Oh. Um. Hm. > > I certainly wasn't thinking of a shell command that manipulates files and > folders as part of an algorithmic language. Not sure I'm willing to cede > that point; it's a different thing, surely? > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > (1872-1970) */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 10:13 > > > POSIX shell: mv old/path/name new/path/name > > --- On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 02:30:33 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote: > >Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > move not actually a copy? And how? > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Or, more formally, addition is commutative but subtraction is not. A + B always* equals B + A, but A - B generally does not equal B - A. *Is that true for computer languages (as opposed to being true only for pure math)? In modern C++ if I say auto x = y + z; If y and z are of different types (float and integer; 64-bit and 32-bit) does x take the type of the first operand, and thus y + z yields a different result than z + y? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 2:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? This reminds me of a very old story (begin of 1990s). I once had to write a translator for a report generator language (not RPG, but similar), which was in use on Polish ODRA computers (ICL clone). The target language was COBOL. After some weeks of work, I delivered the first version. The "customers" (a team of programmers of another company) tested it and after some days responded like this: "very fine, very fine. BTW: is it possible that the subtractions all show the wrong sign?" It turned out that I generated SUBTRACT A FROM B GIVING C for C := A - B much the same way as ADD A TO B GIVING C for C := A + B -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Where does FTP server F DEBUG= write its data?
Found it. Thanks all. On this system no syslog.conf. Configuration seems to be in a legacy dataset pointed to by the -f flag in EXEC PGM=SYSLOGD,PARM=. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John S. Giltner, Jr. Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 4:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Where does FTP server F DEBUG= write its data? Our also goes to syslogd to the file pointed to by: daemon.debug /path/filename In /etc/syslog.conf -- 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
Re: Java memory limit
I am trying to under if java memory utilisation hits the general CPU or zIIP ? Does the memory capping of java is determined by java version or zOS hardware or the product which uses it ? On Fri, 17 Jul, 2020, 8:46 pm Lizette Koehler, wrote: > I think the answer is it depends. > > How much memory is available - as I recall JAVA can take it all > > In OMVS - Ua -limit > > core file 8192b > cpu time 85835 > data size unlimited > file size unlimited > stack size unlimited > file descriptors 64000 > address space 1657832k > memory above bar 2048m > > > from MVS Console - D OMVS,LIMIT > > OMVS 0011 ACTIVE OMVS=(00) > SYSTEM WIDE LIMITS: LIMMSG=NONE > CURRENT HIGHWATER SYSTEM > USAGE USAGE LIMIT > MAXPROCSYS 200 259 2100 > MAXUIDS 26 31 500 > MAXPTYS 0 1 800 > MAXMMAPAREA 8428 8428 40960 > MAXSHAREPAGES 47918 254576 32768000 > IPCMSGNIDS 17 20 500 > IPCSEMNIDS 11 21 2000 > IPCSHMNIDS 3 6 500 > IPCSHMSPAGES 0 26 786432 > IPCMSGQBYTES --- 7812 2147483647 > IPCMSGQMNUM --- 2 1 > IPCSHMMPAGES --- 256 12800 > SHRLIBRGNSIZE 49056 49056 444596224 > SHRLIBMAXPAGES 0 0 65536 > MAXUSERMOUNTSYS 0 0 0 > MAXUSERMOUNTUSER 0 0 0 > MAXPIPES 59 170 15360 > > > So depending on how many processes you are going to run, what type of code > - simple or complex > > JAVA could take as much as you can give it > > Do you have a specific issue you are trying to resolve? > > Lizette > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Peter > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 9:30 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Java memory limit > > Hello > > We are running IBM RDZ on zOS 2.3 with java 6. What's the maximum memory > limit for java ? Is it based on Java version or zOS version ? > > Peter > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email > to mailto: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 > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 08:20:09 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Or, more formally, addition is commutative but subtraction is not. > >A + B always* equals B + A, but A - B generally does not equal B - A. > >*Is that true for computer languages (as opposed to being true only for pure >math)? In modern C++ if I say > >auto x = y + z; > >If y and z are of different types (float and integer; 64-bit and 32-bit) does >x take the type of the first operand, and thus y + z yields a different result >than z + y? > I think it's mostly dominant type. But there may have been a transition from unsigned-preserving to value-preserving. So it may no longer be true that -1 > (unsigned)0. Since C defines subscripting in terms of addition and addition is commutative, "wombat"[3] may be written as 3["wombat"]; both evaluate to 'b'. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that is not really what we are talking about. It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by C and not programmer variables. Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move not actually a copy? And how? -Original Message- From: David Crayford Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a huge difference between copy and move semantics. --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what you are calling a COPY. -- 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
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Yeah, the signed/unsigned thing can be surprising. IIRC if x is unsigned then x < 0 is never true but x == -1 might be true. I knew about 3[foo] being equivalent to foo[3]. I find it astonishing but know that it is true (and understand why, more or less). Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 10:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 08:20:09 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Or, more formally, addition is commutative but subtraction is not. > >A + B always* equals B + A, but A - B generally does not equal B - A. > >*Is that true for computer languages (as opposed to being true only for pure >math)? In modern C++ if I say > >auto x = y + z; > >If y and z are of different types (float and integer; 64-bit and 32-bit) does >x take the type of the first operand, and thus y + z yields a different result >than z + y? > I think it's mostly dominant type. But there may have been a transition from unsigned-preserving to value-preserving. So it may no longer be true that -1 > (unsigned)0. Since C defines subscripting in terms of addition and addition is commutative, "wombat"[3] may be written as 3["wombat"]; both evaluate to 'b'. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table
Hello. I’m reading Chapter 5 Using Access Registers in MVS Programming Extended Addressability Guide (SA23-1394-30). Pages 113 – 116 “Procedures for establishing addressability to an address space”Regarding Figure 38I understand the EAX value of PCRTN indexes into the AT of AS2.I understand PC routine contains an ALESERV ADD request for an address spaceI understand Issuing the ETDEF macro to build the PC routine's ETD with the EAX parameter code.It’s the Target Address Space (AS2) that I have issues with.First of all – I am assuming PCRTN resides in the Private Area of the Accessing Address Space (AS1) and PCRTN is defined as a Non- Space Switching, Stacking PC , with a System LX. Is My understanding correct ?.Second - if AS2 (The Target Address space) can switch to Supervisor State, issue ATSET and a Cross Memory Post why can’t it simply Establish and Setup Its Own Cross Memory Environment, allowing AS1 or any other Address Space the capability of issuing a PC calls to it directly ? The procedure described for AS2 in Figure 38 seems un-necessary to me..Third – Given the technique described for Figure 38 – wouldn’t it be more appropriate for AS1 to define two Non-Space Switching PC routines. One residing in the Private Area of AS1, and the other in LPA. This would allow AS2 to PC to the second PC routine (in LPA) to issue ATSET and a Cross Memory POST. Does this make better sense?.Fourth – is any one on this discussion list aware of any IBM product, or OEM Vendor product, or installation written software, that uses the technique described with Figure 38 ?.Paul D’Angelo. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Multi-channel OSA-ICC routing and TCP port behavior
Hi, I have been experimenting with setting up OSA-ICC cards on a z114. These are OSA Express3 cards with 4 ports / 2 channels. Let's look at a single channel in this card, named CHPID 200. These are the configuration parameters for this card: > Channel ID: 0200 > LAN port type: OSA-ICC 3270 > > Physical Port 0 > Server name: [empty] > Host IP address: 10.0.0.10 > TCP port (1-65535): 23 > Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 > MTU size(B): 1492 > > Physical Port 1 > Server name: [empty] > Host IP address: 10.0.1.10 > TCP port (1-65535): 3270 > Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 > MTU size(B): 1492 > > Default gateway: 10.0.0.1 My most pressing confusion is related to the IP. A configuration with the two ports in the same subnet is considered invalid, yet there is only a single channel-level gateway that seems to be definable. If I try to assign e.g. 10.0.0.10 and 10.0.0.20 with default gateway 10.0.0.1 I get the following error: > // @@@ Error 1057: Host IP for Physical Port 0 and Physical Port 1 are defined in the same segment If I can only define a single channel-level gateway, and the ports cannot be in the same L2, how is this second port intended to be used? One port routable and one port accessible only from the same L2? My second question is if there is any way around the TCP port number not being able to be reused. I would love all my OSA-ICC to use TCP port 23, but it seems that even though the ports need separate IP addresses, the TCP port cannot be the same between the two ports. Is that correct? The error I get when I try to re-use the same port is: > // @@@ Error 1055: Host port value used for previous physical port definition: 23 for PORT 0. Thanks for any insights / experiences. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
fre 2020-07-17 klockan 14:05 + skrev Barkow, Eileen: > For those not aware of this IBM has been offering free web COBOL > classes and have been getting hundreds of people in attendance, many > of whom are new mainframe programmers. > They are also offering a free class on the IDZ/Data Studio > products (ECLIPSE based products for Cobol, SQL and other > languages). > The IDZ class is Monday morning at 9am and you can listen in without > pre-registering. > They same URL is used for the Cobol class tue and Thursday at 9am. > Which time-zone ? EST ? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table
I don't know if this was readable for others but I had to edit it to be able to read it. I thought I would share my editing. Different mail clients -- perhaps it was better for others as it was. Different strokes ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of esst...@juno.com Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table Hello. I'm reading Chapter 5 Using Access Registers in MVS Programming Extended Addressability Guide (SA23-1394-30). Pages 113 -- 116 "Procedures for establishing addressability to an address space" Regarding Figure 38I understand the EAX value of PCRTN indexes into the AT of AS2.I understand PC routine contains an ALESERV ADD request for an address space. I understand Issuing the ETDEF macro to build the PC routine's ETD with the EAX parameter code. It's the Target Address Space (AS2) that I have issues with. First of all -- I am assuming PCRTN resides in the Private Area of the Accessing Address Space (AS1) and PCRTN is defined as a Non- Space Switching, Stacking PC , with a System LX. Is My understanding correct ? Second - if AS2 (The Target Address space) can switch to Supervisor State, issue ATSET and a Cross Memory Post why can't it simply Establish and Setup Its Own Cross Memory Environment, allowing AS1 or any other Address Space the capability of issuing a PC calls to it directly ? The procedure described for AS2 in Figure 38 seems un-necessary to me. Third -- Given the technique described for Figure 38 -- wouldn't it be more appropriate for AS1 to define two Non-Space Switching PC routines. One residing in the Private Area of AS1, and the other in LPA. This would allow AS2 to PC to the second PC routine (in LPA) to issue ATSET and a Cross Memory POST. Does this make better sense? Fourth -- is any one on this discussion list aware of any IBM product, or OEM Vendor product, or installation written software, that uses the technique described with Figure 38 ? Paul D'Angelo. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Multi-channel OSA-ICC routing and TCP port behavior
Christian, IMHO: For use as an OSA-C, the second port is of minimal use. About the only good use is to attach a local non-routable lan segment so that local consoles can be isolated from your main network so that the network people do not mess with your z/OS consoles. Tony Thigpen Christian Svensson wrote on 7/18/20 3:01 PM: Hi, I have been experimenting with setting up OSA-ICC cards on a z114. These are OSA Express3 cards with 4 ports / 2 channels. Let's look at a single channel in this card, named CHPID 200. These are the configuration parameters for this card: Channel ID: 0200 LAN port type: OSA-ICC 3270 Physical Port 0 Server name: [empty] Host IP address: 10.0.0.10 TCP port (1-65535): 23 Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 MTU size(B): 1492 Physical Port 1 Server name: [empty] Host IP address: 10.0.1.10 TCP port (1-65535): 3270 Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 MTU size(B): 1492 Default gateway: 10.0.0.1 My most pressing confusion is related to the IP. A configuration with the two ports in the same subnet is considered invalid, yet there is only a single channel-level gateway that seems to be definable. If I try to assign e.g. 10.0.0.10 and 10.0.0.20 with default gateway 10.0.0.1 I get the following error: // @@@ Error 1057: Host IP for Physical Port 0 and Physical Port 1 are defined in the same segment If I can only define a single channel-level gateway, and the ports cannot be in the same L2, how is this second port intended to be used? One port routable and one port accessible only from the same L2? My second question is if there is any way around the TCP port number not being able to be reused. I would love all my OSA-ICC to use TCP port 23, but it seems that even though the ports need separate IP addresses, the TCP port cannot be the same between the two ports. Is that correct? The error I get when I try to re-use the same port is: // @@@ Error 1055: Host port value used for previous physical port definition: 23 for PORT 0. Thanks for any insights / experiences. -- 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
Re: Multi-channel OSA-ICC routing and TCP port behavior
Port 23 is standard telnet. Port 3270 is non-standard TN3270E. On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:10 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: > > Christian, > > IMHO: For use as an OSA-C, the second port is of minimal use. About the > only good use is to attach a local non-routable lan segment so that > local consoles can be isolated from your main network so that the > network people do not mess with your z/OS consoles. > > > Tony Thigpen > > Christian Svensson wrote on 7/18/20 3:01 PM: > > Hi, > > > > I have been experimenting with setting up OSA-ICC cards on a z114. > > These are OSA Express3 cards with 4 ports / 2 channels. Let's look at a > > single channel in this card, named CHPID 200. > > > > These are the configuration parameters for this card: > > > >> Channel ID: 0200 > >> LAN port type: OSA-ICC 3270 > >> > >> Physical Port 0 > >> Server name: [empty] > >> Host IP address: 10.0.0.10 > >> TCP port (1-65535): 23 > >> Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 > >> MTU size(B): 1492 > >> > >> Physical Port 1 > >> Server name: [empty] > >> Host IP address: 10.0.1.10 > >> TCP port (1-65535): 3270 > >> Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 > >> MTU size(B): 1492 > >> > >> Default gateway: 10.0.0.1 > > > > My most pressing confusion is related to the IP. A configuration with the > > two ports in the same subnet is considered invalid, yet there is only a > > single channel-level gateway that seems to be definable. > > If I try to assign e.g. 10.0.0.10 and 10.0.0.20 with default gateway > > 10.0.0.1 I get the following error: > > > >> // @@@ Error 1057: Host IP for Physical Port 0 and Physical Port 1 are > > defined in the same segment > > > > If I can only define a single channel-level gateway, and the ports cannot > > be in the same L2, how is this second port intended to be used? One port > > routable and one port accessible only from the same L2? > > > > My second question is if there is any way around the TCP port number not > > being able to be reused. I would love all my OSA-ICC to use TCP port 23, > > but it seems that even though the ports need separate IP addresses, the TCP > > port cannot be the same between the two ports. > > Is that correct? The error I get when I try to re-use the same port is: > > > >> // @@@ Error 1055: Host port value used for previous physical port > > definition: 23 for PORT 0. > > > > Thanks for any insights / experiences. > > > > -- > > 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 -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? We move physical objects: they cease to occupy one space and instead occupy another. But a computer memory holds information. You can no more move data in memory from one place to another than you can move knowledge from my head to yours. You get a copy; I still have the original. I suppose for some security purpose a machine might implement "copy and clear": kind of like an MVC plus an XC on the source location. You could argue that was a move. You can "move" a disk file in that the space it formerly occupied becomes unallocated, just like a shelf becomes free if you move a stack of books from one shelf to another. IEHMOVE moves datasets. Another word -- kind of COBOL related -- that our industry uses with a meaning different from English is SORT. In English "sort" means to put into appropriate sub-groups: sort the forks and spoons into their drawers. What we mean by SORT in English is order: have the children line up ordered by height; order the files alphabetically. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that is not really what we are talking about. It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by C and not programmer variables. Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I > was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony > Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm > confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and > doesn't actually mean COPY? > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark > on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) > */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you > prefer: > > MOVE A TO B or > SET B = A ? > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: >> Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a >> move not actually a copy? And how? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: David Crayford >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 >> >> I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a >> huge difference between copy and move semantics. >> >> --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: >>> From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what >>> you are calling a COPY. > > -- > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
An Abacus is a computer. The beads are moved. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 08:23 Charles Mills wrote: > What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? We move > physical objects: they cease to occupy one space and instead occupy > another. But a computer memory holds information. You can no more move data > in memory from one place to another than you can move knowledge from my > head to yours. You get a copy; I still have the original. I suppose for > some security purpose a machine might implement "copy and clear": kind of > like an MVC plus an XC on the source location. You could argue that was a > move. > > You can "move" a disk file in that the space it formerly occupied becomes > unallocated, just like a shelf becomes free if you move a stack of books > from one shelf to another. IEHMOVE moves datasets. > > Another word -- kind of COBOL related -- that our industry uses with a > meaning different from English is SORT. In English "sort" means to put into > appropriate sub-groups: sort the forks and spoons into their drawers. What > we mean by SORT in English is order: have the children line up ordered by > height; order the files alphabetically. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Tony Thigpen > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:21 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? > > The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, > not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that > is not really what we are talking about. > > It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original > storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it > relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by > C and not programmer variables. > > Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a > language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is > not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data > manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. > > And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not > English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. > > Tony Thigpen > > Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: > > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb > MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > > > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > (1872-1970) */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise > English. > > > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do > you > > prefer: > > > > MOVE A TO B or > > SET B = A ? > > > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > wrote: > >> Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > >> move not actually a copy? And how? > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: David Crayford > >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > >> > >> I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > >> huge difference between copy and move semantics. > >> > >> --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > >>> From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what > >>> you are calling a COPY. > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- > 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...@listse
Re: Application necessities was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
tor 2020-07-16 klockan 23:12 -0300 skrev Clark Morris: > > And will they have an adequate test mechanism for both online and > batch? The hardest part of my job where I worked was getting a > coordinated set of test data that I could use as a base. I also have > come to the conclusion that the way systems should be developed is > the > helps and user documentation would come before code and form the > specifications for the system. In some of the newer development > methodologies, maybe that could be concurrent. All fixes would be > either changes to the code to match the help and documentation or the > help and documentation to match the code. Technical writers should > be > a part of the development teams. A large portion of the coding > community including me is poor at writing. > > Clark Morris > That is one of the lessons in Brook's "Man month" book - documentation is king/definition of the future product. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Bob, David didn't say there were languages that did "moves". He said that there are several languages that implement a copy verb that does what MOVE does in COBOL. Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for INCLUDE and used MOVE. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Bob Bridges wrote: > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb > MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > (1872-1970) */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you > prefer: > > MOVE A TO B or > SET B = A ? > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > wrote: > > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > > move not actually a copy? And how? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: David Crayford > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what > > > you are calling a COPY. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
> What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? Moving an element from one list to another comes to mind. That doesn't change the physical location of the data, but it does change their logical location. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Charles Mills [charl...@mcn.org] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 6:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? We move physical objects: they cease to occupy one space and instead occupy another. But a computer memory holds information. You can no more move data in memory from one place to another than you can move knowledge from my head to yours. You get a copy; I still have the original. I suppose for some security purpose a machine might implement "copy and clear": kind of like an MVC plus an XC on the source location. You could argue that was a move. You can "move" a disk file in that the space it formerly occupied becomes unallocated, just like a shelf becomes free if you move a stack of books from one shelf to another. IEHMOVE moves datasets. Another word -- kind of COBOL related -- that our industry uses with a meaning different from English is SORT. In English "sort" means to put into appropriate sub-groups: sort the forks and spoons into their drawers. What we mean by SORT in English is order: have the children line up ordered by height; order the files alphabetically. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that is not really what we are talking about. It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by C and not programmer variables. Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I > was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony > Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm > confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and > doesn't actually mean COPY? > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark > on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) > */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you > prefer: > > MOVE A TO B or > SET B = A ? > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: >> Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a >> move not actually a copy? And how? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: David Crayford >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 >> >> I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a >> huge difference between copy and move semantics. >> >> --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: >>> From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what >>> you are calling a COPY. > > -- > 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 ---
Re: Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table
The HTML character entities make your message almost unreadable. Does your e-mail software have a way to turn them off? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of esst...@juno.com [esst...@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 2:54 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table Hello. I’m reading Chapter 5 Using Access Registers in MVS Programming Extended Addressability Guide (SA23-1394-30). Pages 113 – 116 “Procedures for establishing addressability to an address space”Regarding Figure 38I understand the EAX value of PCRTN indexes into the AT of AS2.I understand PC routine contains an ALESERV ADD request for an address spaceI understand Issuing the ETDEF macro to build the PC routine's ETD with the EAX parameter code.It’s the Target Address Space (AS2) that I have issues with.First of all – I am assuming PCRTN resides in the Private Area of the Accessing Address Space (AS1) and PCRTN is defined as a Non- Space Switching, Stacking PC , with a System LX. Is My understanding correct ?.Second - if AS2 (The Target Address space) can switch to Supervisor State, issue ATSET and a Cross Memory Post why can’t it simply Establish and Setup Its Own Cross Memory Environment, allowing AS1 or any other Address Space the capability of issuing a PC calls to it directly ? The procedure described for AS2 in Figure 38 seems un-necessary to me..Third – Given the technique described for Figure 38 – wouldn’t it be more appropriate for AS1 to define two Non-Space Switching PC routines. One residing in the Private Area of AS1, and the other in LPA. This would allow AS2 to PC to the second PC routine (in LPA) to issue ATSET and a Cross Memory POST. Does this make better sense?.Fourth – is any one on this discussion list aware of any IBM product, or OEM Vendor product, or installation written software, that uses the technique described with Figure 38 ?.Paul D’Angelo. -- 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
Re: Using AN EAX value of PC Routineto index into the Authority Table
This is explained on page 113: "The example also shows the difference between cross memory data movement with a move to primary (MVCP) and a data movement performed through ARs and the MVC instruction. PGM1 uses the SSAR instruction to establish AS2 as the secondary address space, then it uses MVCP to move data from AS2 to AS1. PCRTN issues the SAC instruction to change the ASC mode to AR mode. Having loaded the addresses and ALETs into the AR/GPR correctly, PCRTN uses MVC to move data from AS2 to AS1." Joe On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 1:56 PM esst...@juno.com wrote: > Hello. I’m reading Chapter 5 Using Access Registers in MVS > Programming Extended Addressability Guide (SA23-1394-30). Pages 113 – > 116 “Procedures for establishing addressability to an address > space”Regarding Figure 38I understand the EAX value of PCRTN indexes > into the AT of AS2.I understand PC routine contains an ALESERV ADD request > for an address spaceI understand Issuing the ETDEF macro to build the PC > routine's ETD with the EAX parameter code.It’s the Target Address > Space (AS2) that I have issues with.First of all – I am assuming > PCRTN resides in the Private Area of the Accessing Address Space (AS1) and > PCRTN is defined as a Non- Space Switching, Stacking PC , with a System LX. > Is My understanding correct ?.Second - if AS2 (The Target Address space) > can switch to Supervisor State, issue ATSET and a Cross Memory Post why > can’t it simply Establish and Setup Its Own Cross Memory Environment, > allowing AS1 or any other Address Space the capability of issuing a PC > calls to it directly ? The procedure described for AS2 in Figure 38 seems > un-necessary to me..Third – Given the technique described for Figure > 38 – wouldn’t it be more appropriate for AS1 to define two > Non-Space Switching PC routines. One residing in the Private Area of AS1, > and the other in LPA. This would allow AS2 to PC to the second PC routine > (in LPA) to issue ATSET and a Cross Memory POST. Does this make better > sense?.Fourth – is any one on this discussion list aware of any IBM > product, or OEM Vendor product, or installation written software, that uses > the technique described with Figure 38 ?.Paul D’Angelo. > > -- > 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
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
And thus part of the problem. A programming language has to codified due to the nature of the beast. English is not codified. If it was, you would not see many definitions in the dictionary for a word. There are many usage for a single word that our minds can help figure from the context or the environment. Wither or not COBOL made a "wrong choice" is subjective and is only valid if previous usage of the work 'move' did not support such a verb choice. I personally believe that the use of 'move' to copy one memory location to another was already 'cannon' by the time COBOL was designed, thus the choice was proper and your view ignores the history of computing at the time COBOL was written. Tony Thigpen Wayne Bickerdike wrote on 7/18/20 7:52 PM: Bob, David didn't say there were languages that did "moves". He said that there are several languages that implement a copy verb that does what MOVE does in COBOL. Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for INCLUDE and used MOVE. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Bob Bridges wrote: You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move not actually a copy? And how? -Original Message- From: David Crayford Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a huge difference between copy and move semantics. --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what you are calling a COPY. -- 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
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
Incorrect. The abacus is not a computer, it is a "calculating tool". The computer using the calculating tool is the human brain. If the Abacus is a computer, so is a pencil and paper where we use tally marks. Wayne, you are starting to make everyone doubt your sanity. :-) Tony Thigpen Wayne Bickerdike wrote on 7/18/20 6:29 PM: An Abacus is a computer. The beads are moved. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 08:23 Charles Mills wrote: What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? We move physical objects: they cease to occupy one space and instead occupy another. But a computer memory holds information. You can no more move data in memory from one place to another than you can move knowledge from my head to yours. You get a copy; I still have the original. I suppose for some security purpose a machine might implement "copy and clear": kind of like an MVC plus an XC on the source location. You could argue that was a move. You can "move" a disk file in that the space it formerly occupied becomes unallocated, just like a shelf becomes free if you move a stack of books from one shelf to another. IEHMOVE moves datasets. Another word -- kind of COBOL related -- that our industry uses with a meaning different from English is SORT. In English "sort" means to put into appropriate sub-groups: sort the forks and spoons into their drawers. What we mean by SORT in English is order: have the children line up ordered by height; order the files alphabetically. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that is not really what we are talking about. It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by C and not programmer variables. Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges wrote: Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move not actually a copy? And how? -Original Message- From: David Crayford Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a huge difference between copy and move semantics. --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what you are calling a COPY. -- 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 -- 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 / signo
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
"Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for INCLUDE and used MOVE." I respectfully disagree. COBOL's mother is FLOW-MATIC. MOVE was in FLOW-MATIC. Joe On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:52 PM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > Bob, > > David didn't say there were languages that did "moves". He said that there > are several languages that implement a copy verb that does what MOVE does > in COBOL. > > Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for > INCLUDE and used MOVE. > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Bob Bridges > wrote: > > > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > > but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > > Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > > disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the > verb > > MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > > > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > > (1872-1970) */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise > English. > > > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do > you > > prefer: > > > > MOVE A TO B or > > SET B = A ? > > > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > > wrote: > > > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is > a > > > move not actually a copy? And how? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: David Crayford > > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > > > > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > > > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > > > > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to > what > > > > you are calling a COPY. > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > -- > 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
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
What are COMTRAN and FACT, chopped liver? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Joe Monk [joemon...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 10:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? "Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for INCLUDE and used MOVE." I respectfully disagree. COBOL's mother is FLOW-MATIC. MOVE was in FLOW-MATIC. Joe On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:52 PM Wayne Bickerdike wrote: > Bob, > > David didn't say there were languages that did "moves". He said that there > are several languages that implement a copy verb that does what MOVE does > in COBOL. > > Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for > INCLUDE and used MOVE. > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Bob Bridges > wrote: > > > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > > but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > > Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > > disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the > verb > > MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > > > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > > (1872-1970) */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such > > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise > English. > > > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do > you > > prefer: > > > > MOVE A TO B or > > SET B = A ? > > > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > > wrote: > > > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is > a > > > move not actually a copy? And how? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: David Crayford > > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > > > > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > > > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > > > > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to > what > > > > you are calling a COPY. > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > -- > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
*"I respectfully disagree. COBOL's mother is FLOW-MATIC. MOVE was inFLOW-MATIC."* Is that why you took the U out of COLOUR and LABOUR and the I from ALUMINIUM? Or is it the Elizabethan English that America adopted? Perpetuating Manglish? On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > What are COMTRAN and FACT, chopped liver? > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf > of Joe Monk [joemon...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 10:41 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years? > > "Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for > INCLUDE and used MOVE." > > I respectfully disagree. COBOL's mother is FLOW-MATIC. MOVE was in > FLOW-MATIC. > > Joe > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:52 PM Wayne Bickerdike > wrote: > > > Bob, > > > > David didn't say there were languages that did "moves". He said that > there > > are several languages that implement a copy verb that does what MOVE does > > in COBOL. > > > > Historically, COBOL made the wrong choice when they codified COPY for > > INCLUDE and used MOVE. > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Bob Bridges > > wrote: > > > > > You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > > > but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > > > Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > > > disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the > > verb > > > MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > > > > > > ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > > > > > > --- > > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > > > /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > > > mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > > > (1872-1970) */ > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On > > > Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > > > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > > > > > > I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As > such > > > the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > > > what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise > > English. > > > > > > IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do > > you > > > prefer: > > > > > > MOVE A TO B or > > > SET B = A ? > > > > > > --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > > > > wrote: > > > > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) > is > > a > > > > move not actually a copy? And how? > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: David Crayford > > > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > > > > > > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there > is a > > > > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > > > > > > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > > > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to > > what > > > > > you are calling a COPY. > > > > > > -- > > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > > > > > -- > > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
First Google hit: It was the arithmetic process of *Abacus* that led to the development of *Computers*. While *abacus* is an ancient calculating tool, *Computers* are modern tools, which performs many functions. The *computers* have become part and parcel of human beings. *Abacus* can also be called as the oldest *computer*. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 12:24 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: > Incorrect. The abacus is not a computer, it is a "calculating tool". The > computer using the calculating tool is the human brain. If the Abacus is > a computer, so is a pencil and paper where we use tally marks. > > Wayne, you are starting to make everyone doubt your sanity. :-) > > Tony Thigpen > > Wayne Bickerdike wrote on 7/18/20 6:29 PM: > > An Abacus is a computer. The beads are moved. > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 08:23 Charles Mills wrote: > > > >> What exactly would "move" mean in a computer memory context? We move > >> physical objects: they cease to occupy one space and instead occupy > >> another. But a computer memory holds information. You can no more move > data > >> in memory from one place to another than you can move knowledge from my > >> head to yours. You get a copy; I still have the original. I suppose for > >> some security purpose a machine might implement "copy and clear": kind > of > >> like an MVC plus an XC on the source location. You could argue that was > a > >> move. > >> > >> You can "move" a disk file in that the space it formerly occupied > becomes > >> unallocated, just like a shelf becomes free if you move a stack of books > >> from one shelf to another. IEHMOVE moves datasets. > >> > >> Another word -- kind of COBOL related -- that our industry uses with a > >> meaning different from English is SORT. In English "sort" means to put > into > >> appropriate sub-groups: sort the forks and spoons into their drawers. > What > >> we mean by SORT in English is order: have the children line up ordered > by > >> height; order the files alphabetically. > >> > >> Charles > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On > >> Behalf Of Tony Thigpen > >> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:21 AM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> Subject: Re: COBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These > Years? > >> > >> The only "destructive move" I have been able to find (i.e, a real move, > >> not a copy) based on one real response, is in C (and derivatives) that > >> is not really what we are talking about. > >> > >> It's move of a "change the pointer to the variable and drop the original > >> storage" type of thing. And, it's a function, not a verb. And, it > >> relates more to what happens to intermediate fields as they are used by > >> C and not programmer variables. > >> > >> Bob, I understand your confusion, because I agree with you. Such a > >> language does not really exist. The excuse of "mv" vs. "cp" in linux is > >> not a valid example as those are file management commands, not data > >> manipulation verbs as used in programming languages. > >> > >> And, to get back to the original statement by someone that Cobol is not > >> English because of the use of MOVE instead of COPY is just silly. > >> > >> Tony Thigpen > >> > >> Bob Bridges wrote on 7/18/20 10:51 AM: > >>> You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - > >> but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, > >> Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford > >> disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the > verb > >> MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY? > >>> > >>> ...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. > >>> > >>> --- > >>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > >>> > >>> /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question > >> mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell > >> (1872-1970) */ > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >> On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike > >>> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 > >>> > >>> I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As > such > >>> the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English > >>> what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise > >> English. > >>> > >>> IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do > >> you > >>> prefer: > >>> > >>> MOVE A TO B or > >>> SET B = A ? > >>> > >>> --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges > > >> wrote: > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) > is a > move not actually a copy? And how? > > -Original Message- > From: David Crayford > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is > a > huge difference be
Re: OOBOL and English was Re: Still COBOL After All These Years?
On 2020-07-18 2:30 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move not actually a copy? And how? Languages which support Linear/Affine type systems where there can only be one instance of a object for which move operations transfer ownership from the sender to the receiver, invalidating the sender. C++ and Rust spring to mind as well as many functional programming languages. Rust strongly enforces ownership, C++ does not but most modern code implement move semantics as it's a requirement of the C++ standard library. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew beforein poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a huge difference between copy and move semantics. --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what you are calling a COPY. -- 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
Re: Multi-channel OSA-ICC routing and TCP port behavior
You can set up some of the ports to be local VTAM terminals, then you can use VISTA (or any 3270 emulator) to connect into the ICC port 3270, and use the LUNAME of the 3270 you defined as a local 3270 terminal. Since you can have over 100 terminals per port, making them all os consoles is a waste, so having a bunch of them as local 3270's that you can give to your carious LPARs (and use EE to connect to the LPARs they are not connected to), is a great way to use them. I like to make the first 16 to 32 devices OS consoles and the rest of them local 3270s. So you are using TCP to get to them inside the ICC, but they are technically local 3270 terminals. I think you can make some of them printers if you want, but that seems like a waste. If you need more detailed directions, there are samples in the OSA express 3 manual (and the newer ones). Or I can send you some screen shots of how to set them up. Various sites I support are also z/114's so it's not a problem. The entire time to set them up will probably take you on the order of 15 seconds for each terminal. (if that) Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
