On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:13:54 +0000, john gilmore wrote:
>
>Downward/backward compatibility does not preclude the the elimination of
>objectionable requirements. I have not put a continuation character in column
>72 of a continued-from JCL-statement card image since before some of you were
>born; but I have just verified that it is still possible, although gratuitous,
>to do so.
>
I stand corrected. I find no mention of this in the current JCL RM.
Perhaps I was misinformed by a mentor.
>In general it is possible, indeed easy, to relax a restriction without
>converting adherence to it into an error.
>
And the apostrophe stupidity is documented:
3.4.1.2 "z/OS V1R12.0 MVS JCL Reference
__________________________________________________________________________________
3.4.1.2 Continuing Parameter Fields Enclosed in Apostrophes
To continue a parameter that is enclosed in apostrophes:
1. Extend the parameter to column 71. Do not code an apostrophe in column
71 of a JCL
statement that is continued. The system interprets the apostrophe in
column 71 as
the final character in the statement and ignores the continuation.
This restriction could be relaxed (perhaps at the expense of requiring
a mark in column 72) because its wishful misuse causes a syntax error.
The split symbol is another matter. It causes no syntax error so
removing the restriction would regrettably change the semantic of
a currently accepted construct:
3 // SET SYMBOL='long'
4 // SET SYM='short'
//*
7 //STEP3 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,
// PARM='This PARM contains a split symbol. Is the value
&SYM
// BOL ''long'' or ''short''?'
IEFC653I SUBSTITUTION JCL - PGM=IEFBR14,PARM='This PARM contains a
split symbol. Is the value shortBOL
''long'' or ''short''?'
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
