On 13 May 2005 06:06:09 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John) wrote:
-----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.
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....
I think the type of situation that Cathy is referring to would be something like:
//A PROC //..... //SYSIN DD * [control cards embedded directly in the PROC] /* // PEND
This has always been one of my pet JCL annoyances; the inability to embed
a sysin dataset *within* a proc means that I need to maintain *two* files:
the PROC itself AND the control file.
(Disclaimer: I have not tried to create a proc like the example shown
above in quite a few years; I don't know for a fact that current versions
of z/OS won't accept such JCL.)
Eric
Nope, they still don't work.
The annoying thing about this is most programs require tiny datasets (ala SYSIN above) to receive their parameters because the 100-byte limit is so constraining it is not practical to use for that purpose.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This tagline intentionally left blank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
