|
Don't hold back. Tell us what you really feel. James H H Lampert wrote:
What in the <censored> was IBM thinking when they broke the <blasphemy> <obscenity> <vulgarity> QSYGETPH API in V5R3, such that it now requires <censored> parameters that didn't even <censored> exist when the API was first defined?Have they somehow forgotten the basic <censored> concept of an API? Have they somehow forgotten that an API, by definition, is a fixed, documented system call that can be trusted not to change in any way that would break existing code? Or have they suddenly decided to act like <blasphemy> Microschlong, and tell all outside commercial product developers to <obscenity> <anatomically improbable bodily function>?-- JHHL
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
