Oppolzer - Informatik / Blog

P., thank you very much. So there is no need for us to change anything at the
moment, even for the "old" system. (One sad thing is that we are still at V3.9
at the moment, due to budget and project limitations).

Kind regards

Bernd



Am 23.09.2013 17:56, schrieb P.E.:
> We have no plans to drop the NORENT option (or to force long names). The
> NORENT option is far too important to too many customers.
>
> So, PL/I will not be making PDSE's a requirement
>
> - P.
>
>
>
>
> From:        Bernd Oppolzer <bernd.oppolzer@T-ONLINE.DE>
> To:        PL1-L@listserv.dartmouth.edu,
> Date:        09/20/2013 06:40 AM
> Subject:        PDS/E, Shared Dasd - PL/1 too?
> Sent by:        "PL1 (language) discussions" <PL1-L@listserv.dartmouth.edu>
>
>
>
> Triggered by an offline answer, I had the idea that
> it could be a good idea to post this on the PL/1 list, too.
>
> Today at one of our sites (the "old" one), we build normal
> load modules which reside in conventional PDS libraries. This is due
> to the fact that the modules are compiled using NORENT and we don't
> need newer options like DLL and LONGNAME etc.
>
> Now I heard about COBOL V5 supporting only program objects
> and thus having the need for PDSEs as output libraries.
>
> Are there plans for PL/1, too? I heard that in the future all compilers
> will share the same code generation backend.
>
> If so, we have some work to do, because our home grown
> change management system only deals with PDS target libraries
> at the moment - I'm not sure how expensive it will be to change that.
> The CCM system copies load modules at installation time to the target
> nodes, at the moment ...
>
> Kind regards
>
> Bernd
>