On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:18:20 +0200, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote: >On Monday 18 May 2009 18:04, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >>>What a stupid necessity that programmers have to code BLOCK CONTAINS 0 ! >>> >> What happens if the programmer pre-allocates the data set? >> It's still a stupid necessity, but it might help in dealing with >> situations where recompilation is impractical. > >Well, pre-allocation is not very compatible with HSM, GDG, and a few other
I believe I understand the concern with GDG. (Actually, mu understanding of GDG is so rudimentary I'm not qualified to doubt the concern.) But what of HSM? Why should there be a problem? Simply preface an IEFBR14 step with attributes and DISP=(,CATLG) >things. So I believe the combination between DISP=(,NEW,CATLG) and BLOCK > ??? What's the omitted positional subparameter? Primary disposition NEW, secondary disposition CATLG? >CONTAINS 0 is the best choice to solve potential problems. > Yah. It should be done by the access method; the application should be oblivious to the entire blocking process. >And believe it or not, but many years ago, I wrote a utility to update >load-modules and force BLKSIZE=0. I probably only used it only once. > By re-linking? I thought that was the only way. (Well, massive RYO.) Is default unblocked an ANSI Standard requirement? (Of course this doesn't preclude an extension implemented via compiler option.) -- 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
