In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/13/2005
at 01:08 AM, Leonard Woren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I think you had the right idea and then missed: I propose that the
>solution should be // PARM and make it mutually exclusive with the
>PARM= keyword on EXEC. Why complicate things?
That question applies as much to your proposal as to anything else.
Adding a new statement is much more complicated than raising the limit
on an existing keyword.
>Well, actually it does make things easier. Since // PARM would be
>all-new, it can be thoughtfully implemented to make it easy to code
>long continuations correctly.
Having different continuation rules for different statements would be
a complication for the user. Why complicate things?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
