In a recent note, Chase, John said: > Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:05:55 -0500 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Taddei, Cathy > > > > I agree with Gil and Charles. IMO, a DD statement would be pointless. > Thanks for all the fish (but, not goodbye.)
> > If a programmer wanted to receive a parm via DD, they could have done > > it already. One of the advantages of PARM= is that you can stick it > > in a proc, where DD * will not work. > > //A PROC > //..... > //SYSIN DD DDNAME=SYSIN > // PEND > //BB EXEC A > //..... > //BB.SYSIN DD * > ... > ... > /* > > Works here.... > But not here: //A PROC OPT1=DEFAULT1,OPT2=DEFAULT2,OPT3=DEFAULT3 //..... // PEND //BB EXEC A,OPT2='Overriding value 2' ... /* ... You'd require the programmer to reassert the default values of PARM options not overridden. Supplying as examples any number of specific instances in which the 100-character limit is not constraining does not serve to refute those cases in which it is burdensome. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
