Shmuel Wrote: >>Were procs in the original design? I know that symbolic parameters >>weren't. They may not have been in PCP. But I am 99% certain they were in OS MFT R18 which was my earliest experience, back in 1970.
>It would have made a lot more sense to treat PROC's as a special >kind of MACRO call and then "PUNCH" out basic JCL statements. >>I don't see how that would be useful. When they introduced PROCS (and later INCLUDE/SET) they basically hid it all away in the C/I. But if instead they had made a clean separation between the expansion of the PROC with symbol resolution from the later phase to interpret all the JCL primitives, that would have been a much cleaner design IMO. And they could have provided TYPRUN=PUNCH to allow you to extract the primitive JCL after PROC/symbol resolution. And if they had done that all those years ago, today we would likely have something like TYPRUN=PUNCHXML to produce something that would be much easier to scan for purposes such as mine. >And I have a lot of appreciation for what they achieved on machines >with as little as 384K of core memory. >>384KiB? We ran PCP on 128 and MFT II on 256. I know of places that ran >>on 64. I have personal experience with MFT on 384K. I don't recall the absolute minimum for OS MFT, but the Wiki article suggests 256K was a practical minimum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
