On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:30:23 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
>
>That would not really work to well. An additional parameter on the DD
>statement would not allow for dynamic allocation and it would
>endlessly make dynamic allocate a PITA especially when you have to re-
>invent the input scanning for each utility.
>
Think reusable code. Such reinvention has been necessary with the
advent of each new allocation parameter; PATH comes most readily
to mind. If there were a common subroutine to accept a string as
specification and generate TUs for SVC 99, recurrent reinvention
would be unnecessary. BPXWDYN comes close; it even issues the
SVC 99.
>Where it *MIGHT* work would be something like a new reserved dd name
>like sysconf and you could either make it at the job or step level.
>
How about something similar to an environment variable rather
than overloading the semantics of DD names?
>I would prefer to see it as a system (sysplex?) wide option.
>
Be careful not to conflate your estimate of implementation
complexity with the desirability of a feature.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:39 PM
>>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:10:16 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> //SYSUT42 DD DISP=OLD,CONFLICT={SILENT|REPORT},...
>>>>>
>>>>> That option should likewise be available on SVC 99, and on the ENQ
>>>>> macro itself.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
