Re: What good is ILE?

As in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical%20question
_rhetorical question_ noun - a question asked solely to produce an effect... and *not to elicit a reply*

So in effect, I am asking nothing; merely hoping to evoke thought by the reader, about what meaning the question might have for the reader. For example, one thought might be "I did not open an APAR for any of those issues...".

Per the undesired reply, and if I must be so direct, for clarity... The intended effect of the rhetorical question was for one to consider that if there are such great difficulties for something not working, using something that should apparently function as expected but does not, then those problems should be pursued as apparent defects via support calls; for which further expectations reasonably would be an APAR to document those difficulties [plus the apparent circumvention to use OPM CLP instead] and even possibly a PTF [perhaps so that the ILE CL would work in those situations, or be clearly documented as having some restriction for the use of CLLE in whatever circumstances not already documented].

Regards, Chuck

On 04 Feb 2013 08:59, Richard Schoen wrote:

As a rhetorical answer what are you asking ? :-)

Be clear.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:29:37 -0800 CRPence wrote:

As a rhetorical question... What was the outcome from the APARs
that reported those problems?

On 04 Feb 2013 04:02, Richard Schoen wrote:

I do a lot of work with PASE and cannot count the number of hours
that I have burned trying to troubleshoot an issue with a program
that was originally compiled as CLLE and then simply recompiled
back to OPM CL and it worked fine.

Now to be fair I do a lot of calling to Qshell and Pase code
within my CL's, but personally I have gone back to wrapping
anything that calls PASE or Java via Qshell as a regular CLP.