On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:29:46 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: > >Then I don't see why there would be a different keyword. > >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. > Such would be my wish, but several participants in this thread feel that the innovation would be acceptable only with a new keyword and/or an incompatible format.
The suggestion of a 64-bit length field is, well, forward-looking. If that were the decision, a bridge module could be used to perform the reformatting after testing that the length of the PARM<=65,535. -- 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
