On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:49:41 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >No. In the context of a separate jobstep, "same REXX" only makes sense if >interpreted as "new invocation of same REXX". > Is it past your nap time? You're getting grouchy.
Why assert something opposite to what Kolusu clearly intended then endeavor to rebut it? > ... Without the restriction to separate jobsteps, it's trivial to use the > temporary twice in the same invocation. >________________________________________ >From: Sri h Kolusu >Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:02 PM > >> What does he code in the JCL of the next step in order to allocate the >temporary dataset that he created in the REXX? > >I guess you overlooked this sentence from my message "OP then needs to >finish the next step processing also in the same rexx." -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
