In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said: > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:41:19 -0300 > > Have you considered a PARMLIB option to control whether unauthorized > programs require the new attribute in order to process parms >100? How > about a second flag for PARM > 32767? And don't you mean Initiator > rather than C/I? > How about a third flag for 256 (the MVC boundary)? Oh, heck; just leave a 2-byte field, the same as the count indicator for the PARM. Then administrators can set any limit they want; 0 or more.
> What about mixed case? > What about that? In the JCL PARM? (That is the topic of this thread, isn't it?) That's adequately handled now with apostrophes; why change it? If there's a move to permit mixed case in PARM, my vote is for ASIS for the default. PARM for ASIS, and PARMFOLD for folded to upper? Why bother. Binder, for example, made a dreadful blunder introducing an UPPER/ASIS option for commands (and, worse, making UPPER the default). The only mode should have been ASIS, which would have broken no preexisting code. Remember KISS? -- 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
