Skip Robinson wrote:
> In any case, aside from some odd reports of inconsistency, it would appear
> that 'P userid' pretty much relegates a user to the trash heap once out of
> ISPF, which was the original goal of the shop I mentioned earlier.
Did that requirement occur before ispf exits were su
Charles Mills wrote:
>Issue CSVQUERY
>INADDR=ptr_to_any_addr_in_my_pgm,SEARCH=JPALPA,SEARCHMINOR=NO,OUTEPNM=eight_
>char_fld_in_writable_storage
>
> (I know some of those parms are defaults; I'm just being extra clear.)
> Given RC=0, that gets me "my" name. Do I need anything else on CXVQUERY
> o
Itschak Mugzach wrote:
>I don't care that the user will look at the program logic. He is not
>authorized to execute some of the commands in the program. The thing is
>that I do not want the user to get control when the program run as they can
>see run-time results of the program or even exit from
"Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote:
> Typically a DOC hold is there because of new messages; an ACTION hold for
> that would be inappropriate.
Not necessarily; it could affect the way message automation table entries
are coded.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Skip Robinson wrote:
> Whether or not you include GOUPEXTEND to pick up additional PTFs to
> resolve hold errors, I feel strongly that the real APPLY should encompass
> exactly the same selection of sysmods as the corresponding CHECK. I submit
> my real APPLY via SDSF SJ with CHECK commented out.
Skip Robinson wrote:
> While Ed and I differ on the need for CHECK and on the practice of
> injecting maintenance directly into the body of a running system, we agree
> on the pointlessness of chasing down sysmod error chains.
It's abiut 20 years since I last did this. IIRC there's some operand
Edward Jaffe wrote:
> As a part-time sysprog, I abbreviate your approach even more. I have no
> time for pesky 'CHECK' operations.
Do you chase down the prereq/coreq chains by hand then?
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
---
