On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:53:03 -0500, Kirk Wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>... >I respectfully disagree: > >1) how are two options "cleaner"? The usage would be ugly... >the JCL coder would have to think - let me see, should I use PARM >with <100 or PARMX with more? and what if both are coded? I see that required thinking as a positive rather than a negative. And the inclusion of both parm formats (if allowed by JCL) would be supported since they use 2 different interfaces. I don't see a downside to that. >2) a separate program api would require modifications to any >program that can already support >100 character parm fields, >which is probably a good percentage. Programs already supporting >100 parms could easily be handled by a simple driver program that takes data from the new long parm api, stuffs it in an old format parm, and LINKs to the program. Since the JCL would already have to be changed to include the new long parm, invoking the driver program would be simple. > >Having an LE option ... When drag LE into this if it's not needed? Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
