In a recent note, Ray Mullins said:
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:03:50 -0700
>
> Because...PARM was originally intended for passing of small values of data.
> If you needed to pass more data than 100 bytes, that was a job for a control
> card data set. Only the C/C++ compiler (from what I've seen in my
> experience) has that capability.
>
> I wouldn't care if it was 32767 or 65535 or 1024 or 4094 - just get off of
> 100.
>
A real-life example that happened to me just today:
96 *-* address 'TSO' 'call *(BPXWDYN) '''T1 'msg(1)'''
>>> "call *(BPXWDYN) 'alloc dd(SYSTSIN) PATHOPTS(ORDONLY)
recfm(F,B) lrecl(255) blksize(510) path(''/dev/fd0'') filedata(TEXT)
reuse msg(1)'"
IKJ56003I PARM FIELD TRUNCATED TO 100 CHARACTERS
I wasn't trying to generate an example; merely following a
sincere recommendation of an IBM developer in another forum:
Linkname: [EMAIL PROTECTED] post from [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
URL: http://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?MVS-OE.41231
It was colossal stupidity of TSO developers to emulate an inane
restriction in JCL when ATTACH has no such limit. Does anyone
happen to know their names?
Is it also proposed to relax the restriction for TSO CALL, as
well as for JCL?
-- 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
