>You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or is there a (new?) >way for the initiator to run programs other than "the traditional >CALL/EXEC/ATTACH/XCTL interface", but transparent to the program >which is run?
I thought that by mentioning CALL, ATTACH, and XCTL"interface" you were referring to the interface to the target routine, where the "traditional" parameter list format is register 1 pointing to a parameter list each entry of which contained the address of a parameter (or perhaps "argument" is the proper term here). The "interface" to an EXEC PGM= target is not that "traditional" form, of course. The batch initiator does of course still use ATTACH for the jobstep program. 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
