>??? A keyword on the DD statement? How will that work? I might more >easily understand a keyword on the EXEC statement.
Your skepticism is warranted. It is not on the DD statement, it is on the EXEC statement as you expected. Typo. Maintaining system integrity, not program correctness, is the priority. If an unauthorized program does not document that it can be given parms longer than 100 bytes and misbehaves if you do so, then don't do so. An authorized program (AC 1 from an APF-auth concatenation) is protected against being given parms longer than 100 bytes unless it indicates (via the LONGPARM binder attribute) that it can handle them. >Since PARMDD and PARM are mutually exclusive, I should be able to >EXEC an existing library PROC, overriding with PARMDD.stepname=MYPARM >and expect the PARM coded in the PROC to be nullified, right? I do not share the expectation. It might work. You might view the resulting behavior as "you get what you get, you are doing something that is documented as not supported -- using both of mutually exclusive keys -- even if that might not be enforced in this circumstance". But that's just my opinion. I am no expert on JCL overrides. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
