Thanks Don, Good to know .... No doubt I'll have cause to make use of that some time in the future :-) ...
Kind regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Don Leahy Sent: 28 October 2009 17:10 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: A modest PARM proposal FWIW, Enterprise Cobol V4 has finally rectified this with the OPTFILE parameter and the SYSOPTF dd statement. (I've never used it...we're still using V3.4). On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Nuttall, Peter (P.) <pnutt...@jaguarlandrover.com> wrote: > I'm also relatively ignorant in this field, but it was a PITA when I was looking after the compilers .... ISTR that the PL1 compiler allowed you to code 'DD:PARMDD' in the Par m field, but the COBOL compiler did not ... For COBOL we had to get as many of the options set to the correct site default as possible so that the parm field was not exceeded ... I always wondered why the two compilers differed in this way ? > > Cheers, > Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
