On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
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:
I guess we differ in what you see and what I see. However its not
worth disagreeing about. Yes it is simpler to do it the way (adding
new JCL statements ), but from my understanding about the last re-
write if there had been no rewrite, the code that would have been
needed would have been quite a bit, as it was originally written it
had turned into a "monster" to add new JCL statements. Now it was a
minor addition (from what I heard). If there had been no restriction
of parm length I believe the new JCL statements could have been
created using dynamic allocation.
But its not worth talking about have it your way.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
