We always abbreviated it POO or PoOp (or should I say acronymized it)? On 2019-09-16 11:16 a.m., Steve Smith wrote: > Re LLIxx: thanks! > > Re PoPs: I didn't really mean to sound pedantic, it's just a curiosity of > mine. In the official title, "Operation" is not plural (nor has it ever > been as far as I can tell). Nevertheless, if everyone wants to call it > PoPs, the fact that it isn't strictly logical doesn't matter much. English > is like that. > > sas > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:16 AM Jonathan Scott <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ref: Your note of Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:32 -0400 >> Gary Weinhold Senior Application Architect DATAKINETICS | Data Performance & Optimization Phone:+1.613.523.5500 x216 Email: [email protected] Visit us online at www.DKL.com E-mail Notification: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
>> Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sheesh. The z/OS 2.4 page still links to the -11 version of PoOp (I >> don't >>> understand what "PoPs" is supposed be abbreviating). >> I thought "POps" = "P of Ops" = "Principles of Operations" but >> the case does seem to be very variable (even in my own notes). >> >> I've passed on the comment about the LLIxx instructions to the >> editor. >> >> HLASM support for the z15 instructions is in the following PTFs >> for APAR PH00902 which were sent to distribution on announcement >> day, September 12th: >> >> z/VM: UI65289 >> z/OS: UI65290 >> z/VSE: UI65291 >> >> Jonathan Scott, HLASM >> IBM Hursley, UK >> >
