John, here is the full citation:
>> Macros are only useful as IBM has used them.� Other than that, >> macros have no value.� What you are saying is that only IBM know what to do with macros. Or maybe IBM knows best what to do with macros and all others should avoid them. Here is a sample that most (in Vendor-situation) have used that I have not seen in IBM anywhere (which I found very useful) Inlinemacro defined before invocation of a copy-book that uses these macros to make sure that each of the n programs uses the same sequence. Here is a sample- copy book has: MAJORPOINT1 XA SUB11 XB SUB12 XB MAJORPOINT2 XA SUB21 XB SUB21 XB ProgramA does trace the calls- has only a macro for XA and a dummy for XB ProgramB handles the code - has a definition for XA that does work as well as XB. .... you could of course do it with copy - but after a very short time the programs might develop into different directions. With macros you can ensure the same sequence (and completeness) always- and even the best could not goof it up. ................. another sample is IEFBRC - no way to do it any other way (and you need macros to do it). I have (without knowing about the z/OS solution IEFBRC developed a very similar solution (according to your stmt I should not have done that)- (mine does part of the work in a SETCF routine) - BUT both solutions do need macros. -- Martin I am in no way (other than working in a field that was created 4th of April 64 by IBM) associated with IBM
