|
|
Post by dinorick on Jan 5, 2022 20:07:00 GMT -5
This is another case where I think the SPFLite2 (and earlier) acts differently from ISPF. I am offering a simple example (for the number of excluded lines) but I have experience from years of maintenance programming with hundreds of lines.
Suppose you have a 50-line file and exclude line 6-10 and lines 16-20. In ISPF you enter "S22" on the line representing 6-10. The result is to restore lines 6-10 and leave 16-20 excluded. In SPFLite(2) lines 16-20 are restored to their former glory. Basically S(how) defaults to the number you specify or until it hits an unexcluded line, whichever comes first.
When you are working on a severe problem and need to restore 147 lines, it is quicker to just type "s222" and assume it will just restore the excluded chunk and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 6, 2022 9:59:21 GMT -5
Rick: I know SPFLite differs quite a bit in how things work in some areas. If you're looking for an editor that slavishly follows the ISPF lead in how things work, you won't find it here. We've been adapting and tweaking things for many, many years now based on users requests. What we have now will probably remain. And with the available features, I think it's pretty damn good.
As I approach 80, the motivation to open the code up and do more tweaking just isn't there.
George
===> Truth is, Rick, you won't find it anywhere, not even by IBM. They have changed ISPF over the years, too, and it's not totally 100% compatible with what it did way back in 1976 or so when I first started using it. I would say, before reacting to SPFLite differences, try to read through the Help (yes, it will take a while) and see what SPFLite really does. In many, many ways, SPFLite is better than ISPF. No, it's not without flaws, but these are minor compared to what it offers you: A great editor with powerful capabilities that even IBM doesn't have, actual support, and you can't beat the price -- R |
|
|
|
Post by dinorick on Jan 7, 2022 21:11:52 GMT -5
First of all I am in complete agreement that SPFLite(2) is "pretty damn good." Up until a couple of years ago, I had spent the majority of my work time in ISPF, mainly in assembler programs and dumps. At home I used Tritus SPF and some other forgettable clones. Your work is certainly superior.
I certainly accept your explanation. In my defense, I am someone who actually did use the "S" line command extensively. Whatever I may say here, have no doubt that I am extremely grateful for your efforts.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 8, 2022 10:51:28 GMT -5
Rick: You descibe the typical ISPF user - whoops! - there isn't one. Everyone ends up with their own favourite subset of commands that become 99% of their usage pattern. I was a system support programmer and part of our duties was to periodically work some shifts in operations. The idea was for us to tutor/mentor the staff, give hints to work easier etc.
The reluctance of people to change or include the use of new functions was remarkable. Everyone was happy to stick with their tried and true methods, even if they were grossly inefficient. It's like muscle-memory.
You use Sn a lot, I don't think I have ever used it. And like the old operations staff, I know I don't use many of the new features we've added.
à chaque on goût
|
|
