On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:10:18 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:44:39 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: > >>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:29:55 +0000, Bill Wilkie wrote: >>> >>>Perhaps a new parameter like NEWPARM=" " that way they could add >>>support for a larger list without affecting old code. When you need it, >>>just code the new name in the JCL and check the program. >> >>*If* this were to be implemented, would you expect that the program would >>be passed two parameters, a short one and a long one? >> >No! For compatibility, it should be exactly the venerable >format produced by the CALL macro, etc. I'd have no problem >with a different keyword for longer PARMs, provided that >keyword also tolerated shorter PARMs. And I'd have little >problem with a PARMLIB option to be used by by phobic or >atavistic systems programmers to prohibit use of that keyword >or set a ceiling on PARM size; we're a lab shop; our sysprogs >are accommodating.
Of course, it should use the same format as the CALL macro, which allows the passing of an arbitrary number of parameters. The existing PARM is passed that way. If you are going to pass only one parm to the program, then I don't see a need for a NEWPARM, unless it is for the benefit of the Converter/Interpreter or the Job Entry Subsystem, or products that interface with them. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
