On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:13:07 -0500, Roberts, John J wrote: >Shmuel Wrote: >>>Were procs in the original design? I know that symbolic parameters >>>weren't.
Is Shmuel suggesting there were PROCs, but no symbolic parameters to them? I know that SET, and symbols in open code are relatively quite recent. >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. > Is resolution of SET symbols performed by the C/I? Is there a later phase than the "I"? does the phase that resolves symbols pass control blocks or JCL text to a later phase? If it passes JCL text with symbols resolved, it has a mighty chore to deal with wrapping beyond column 71 when symbol resolution changes line lengths. It's a design targeted at too little storage, resulting in too many phases. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
