In a recent note, john gilmore said: > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:18:55 +0000 > > and JCL support for parameter values can differ too. (Failure to understand > that the original model for the syntax of JCL was that of the HLASM macro > language is the root of much trouble.) > Alas, one who starts from that understanding may be misled, for example, by assuming that keyword arguments may be supplied in arbitrary order. JCL does not allow this in all cases.
> Certain facilities may thus support the dubious practice of treating > > . . . ,parm=, . . . > > and > . . . ,parm=<default value>, . . . > > as equivalent; but, I think fortunately, there is no mechanism currently > avaiable for ensuring that all of them do so. > I agree with you (but is it possible to agree viscerally?) that the latter form is safer. But when the latter form is not syntactically available, I'll resort to the former. My first statement was that all keyword arguments should have an explicit default value. And, regardless, the doc should not deny the validity of the former when it is in fact accepted. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
