On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:24 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: > >I am *GUESSING* that the new statement is a nod to compatibility. >There are just too many programs that accept the current limit and >would be broken if the parameter passing was changed. I am OK with it >myself. Since any *NEW* program would have to be programmed to accept >the parameter list that IBM comes up with. I certainly don't object >as it maintain compatibility at no cost. > That's not the way I read it:
> > http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP13-0013 >> >> ... No changes are planned to be needed for unauthorized programs. >> This new support is intended to make it easier to pass a large >> number of parameters to a program without writing intermediate >> programs. >> Admittedly, I infer in there, "... to exploit this new support." And the JCL, but not the load module will need to be changed to mention PARMDD. I assume that R1 will continue to point to a halfword length, now from 0 to 32760, followed by so many characters of the parameter. Do you see it otherwise? >> When long PARMS have been discussed here previously, the reactionaries >> and IBM loyalists have objected, "Oh, no! We can't have that! Suddenly >> programs that clearly failed on JCL errors will instead program check >> on buffer overruns and our help desk bandwidth will be strained." >> >> Well, if they're true IBM loyalists, now that IBM is blessing it >> they'll welcome it. How will the more skeptical customers react? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
