On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:02:27 +0000, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >>(Not that I agree with IBM's design choice here.) > >This has been discussed many times. >IBM's design choice is based on a simple premise: >When do you convert the system symbols? >On the submitting system? >On the converting system? >On the executing system? >What about NJE/NJP? > Rhetorical questions: Why not, then, allow the programmer, through a control statement or symbol qualifier, to choose among those three alternatives? And why does NJE make a difference? (NJP is not in my vocabulary).
>Any choice can/will be wrong, so why open the can of worms? > Many programmers feel that even if IBM were to choose one of the alternatives above, they would benefit; it would be right for them. Those to whom the facility would be no benefit would be not be harmed by it if it were provided: they could continue to use batch JCL with no system symbol references as they do today. -- 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
