On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:00:15 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:19:44 +0000, Bill Wilkie wrote: > >>Tom: >> >>No, only the one that is coded. If you have PARM=" " coded, it works as always. If you code NEWPARM="" they Getmain an area for something larger like 256 bytes and everything else works the same. That way you could have a controlled implementation without mucking up what's there. Once the support for newparm is in the system, you can add it where needed. >>
Then I don't see why there would be a different keyword. >In fact, there's the seed of a compromise here. Provided that NEWPARM doesn't >introduce any unexpected restrictions; i.e.: > >o It supports symbolic substitution in the same way as PARM. > >o It can be used in PROCs and open code alike, even as PARM. > >There could be a bridge load module; preferably from IBM; as an alternative >from CBT which would reformat the NEWPARM into classic PARM format, verifying >that the length does not exceed 65,535 (no need to limit it to 32,767) and >XCTL to the program named in the first 8 characters of NEWPARM. What is there to format? The NEWPARM would be a halfword length followed by the specified value, wouldn't it? Just like the PARM, but without the 100 byte restriction. -- 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
