How about a new //SYSPARM DD instead? If this were combined with a 'SYMBOLS=YES' option on the DD statement, as Gil recommended earlier in this thread (I hope I got that attribution correct), it would not break existing programs, which would simply ignore the DD, not expecting it. Of course, if any program currently expects a SYSPARM DD, it would continue to function as it has in the past.
If we're looking to add new functionality, it can be designed to not interfere with old conventions. If we're trying to access current functionality of some programs which is (currently) non-standard (e.g. accepting long parms) then we risk breaking programs which are currently standardized (don't accept long parms). Having said that, I don't believe it is a large risk. Something like PARMX, which can be explicitly stated to ONLY work for programs that support it (I'm talking about documentation, not code) puts the responsibility for abending (or worse) programs on the shoulders of the users who improperly use it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
