In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/23/2008
at 03:22 PM, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>We have discussed on IBM-MAIN plenty of times about the restriction of
>100 characters in the parm field. The PSF proc is an example what IBM
>had to go through in order to get around the 100 character max.
I see no such circumvention.
>This is the interesting as it shows how far IBM had to go to get
> around the restriction. They basically had to add fields and change
>the convertor/interpreter to allow for the "options".
The OUTPUT statement is not an extension of the EXEC statement and has
nothing to do with PARM.
>While I am not saying increasing the length
>would *NOT* have necessitated the changes (its probably a tossup) it
>would have made implementation, IMO a LOT easier.
No. IBM would still have needed to add the OUTPUT statement and nothing in
the code for the extended PARM could have been pirated for us in OUTPUT.
>As a side issue are these new JCL parameters supported in dynamic
>allocation?
Yes.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
