Re: CRTCSVF vs CPYTOIMPF -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: CRTCSVF vs CPYTOIMPF
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:53:22 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Well, if you are distributing software then CRTCSVF is not on my systems
and that could be an issue.

I was so disgusted with IBM on V5R3 and up what they did with CPYTOIMPF
and CPYFRMIMPF that I won't use them anymore. I find that writing my own
is:
- faster
- more granular on handling errors.
- doesn't blow me grief on CCSID crud.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: CRTCSVF vs CPYTOIMPF , Joe Pluta

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.