On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >on 04/06/2013 at 09:27 AM, Peter Relson said: > >>Q.Does this apply alike for FB, LRECL other than 80? >>A.Yes (I believe we checked that things ISPF do sequence numbers >>even for FB LRECL other than 80). > >ISPF also supports seqience numbers for RECFM=VB; I hope that you're >not saying that those are not stripped when FB sequence numbers are. > And there, I disagree intensely. If, by happenstance the programmer's data have 8 numeric digits on the left, the programmer will be compelled to reformat. If the data are entirely numeric, this may require inserting a dummy 8-character numeric field to be stripped.
(Am I failing to recognize Shmuel's intended irony?) If ISPF is the paradigm, does ISPF recognize sequence numbers as valid only if they are in ascending order throughout the file? Will PARMDD have a similar constraint on ordering of sequence numbers? A PARMDD file of more than a couple hundred characters is likely to have been output of a program rather than typed by hand. Stripping sequence numbers and blanks compels the programmer to adjust his formatting to compensate for the stripping. This considerably complicates that programmer's task. How can the programmer code a PARM in PARMDD that contains 81 consecutive blanks or ends with a field of blanks or consists entirely of blanks? That's easy enough to do in JCL PARM=. Don't munge the programmer's data! -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
