Sometimes what one desires and gets are two different things. I like simplicity in a macros with the passable parameters.
Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. - Chinese Proverb On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Walt Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:42:47 -0800, Edward Jaffe > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/11/2013 7:59 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 08:37, Bill Fairchild wrote: >>> >>>> In order to make a simple trick like this easy to maintain by someone > else in the future, or even myself (since my intricately detailed memory is > rather short-lived), I would want to write so much documentation into the > code that I would rather spend much less time and write three copies of the > macro to make the code triple-pathed. >>> Dismayingly, when there are multiple options, the multiplicity >>> grows exponentially. >> >> The MF=M form of RACROUTE is sooo nice for situations like this. I wish all >> macros had that! > > Drat. I was just about to mention that, but you beat me to it. :) > > We discovered gil's issue back during the design for MVS 3.1.3, with some of > the new RACROUTE options and some exploiters (particularly JES) who needed > to be able to issue the macro with a wide variety of different options > depending on the exact circumstances, and did not want to write multiple > code paths. We found it was easier overall to provide MF=M so they could > modify individual parameters, before finally issuing MF=E to actually > execute it. They might have one MF=L form with the common set of parameters, > and then code with several different MF=M invocations to set unique > parameters as needed, and finally one MF=E. That made it much easier to add > the RACROUTE requests into their code. > > -- > Walt
