> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
>
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> > All I'm saying is that it takes two objects to create this error.
> > Your production program must do things incorrectly today AND your
> > production JCL must change. If it works today, then only a change to
> > one of these two (hopefully) controlled objects can break it.
> >
> > Unless you just let your production JCL be changed willy-nilly you are
> > at no risk of exposure.
> >
>
> You don't have to change the JCL to change the PARM if it is
> specified by the operator on the Start-command, or is built
> from symbolics.
>
> S TOOL,PARM='A NUMBER OF COMMANDS AND PARAMETER GIVEN TO THE TOOL'
>
> //T EXEC PGM=TOOL,PARM='&VALUE1,&VALUE2,&VALUE3'
A lot of the, well, "FUD" posted over the prospect of IBM removing the
100-byte PARM= limitation in JCL seems to presume that "everybody" is just
"waiting in the wings" to "try it". There were many who predicted that the
US would immediately become a nation of drunken sots if (alcohol)
Prohibition was repealed. As we know, it was and we didn't.
We (the "mainframe community") regularly claim to be more careful and more
diligent at implementing change than our counterparts in the "non-mainframe"
world. Are we now saying that that claim has been, or will become, false?
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
