On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:43:42 -0500, Scott Barry wrote: > >Oh well - another strike against JCL coding optimization attempts, while >having somewhat similar angst with "nested PROCs" to some degree, mostly >with restart/recovery attempts. > Have you ever suspected that IBM accepted a Requirement for nested PROCs in which the submitter had neglected to specify that all facilities available in first-level PROCs such as referbacks, overrides, and, yes, restart/recovery should equally be available in PROCs nested more deeply, perhaps assuming it was implicit?
And IBM, seeing that it wasn't explicit, felt no responsibility to Do It Right and took all the shortcuts? Shame on IBM. -- 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
