> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Cole [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

> Has it always been the case that LISTF,6 and LISTFILE,6 work
> differently??

I think LISTFILE came out in release 2.1(?) and back then it probably
worked identically to LISTF.  It was added to support SELEQs
for the new Spooler commands.  I believe it called the same output
formatting routine that LISTF called.

Along came POSIX in release 4.5 and LISTFILE was enhanced to accept
POSIX syntax filenames and some new SELEQ options.  At this time
it used a different output formatting routine (from LISTF) and it
called a new procedure to traverse the directory.  LISTF was not
changed, and still called the old directory services.

Later in 5.0 LISTF was hooked into the same directory traversal
routine and output routine as LISTFILE uses; although, we
attempted to preserve all of LISTF's quirks.  At this time
(with input from 3000-L) LISTFILE was changed to work consistently
in batch and interactively.

> In a batch job (it's different from a session), LISTF,6
> writes the date/time
> as the first record, while LISTFILE,6 does not.  (This is on 5.5pp6.)

LISTF from MPE V days if different in a job than in a session.
It was by design since in those days op centers saved paper output
for archive, and listf in a job did a page throw and wrote a date/timestamp
at the top of the new page.  Feedback from 3000-L
and other sources did not favor this decision and so LISTFILE was
changed to be consistent in batch and in sessions.

HTH,
Jeff Vance, CSY