John McKown wrote: >... feel free to call me an idiot.
No. I will *NOT* do that. >It generally seems that an ALIAS does not contain a TTR per se, but actually >contains the actual member name. AFAIK, ALIAS does contains a TTR, but that is the same as the original member. >If so, then why not extend the ALIAS concept (a member name which points to >another member name) to a new class of member, which I will call a CONCAT >member. This is a member name which contains multiple member names, perhaps in >the user data area. When you OPEN a CONCAT member for reading, what you get is >the contents of all the members listed in the order listed. Good idea as long the data area used during an OPEN macro can handle that list and there is little overhead. I already can see a good use: varying list of contents to be used as input for a program or something. Those members can be changed before using that list of members/contents in any order. But I see some little problems: You may need re-parse/re-do your SVC99 so a concatenation can take place. But then again you perhaps need to redrive that SVC 99 to convert that DD into a concatenation. I'm thinking of that word DCCDDNAM and other keywords used for that macro. Unless, if you can write an intercepting exit which can recognize that member and do its own SVC99 instead calling/passing on the standard SVC 99 routines. I foresee there are heavy overhead work for locating each member (TTR), doing an ENQ while hoping the member and its contents are still there when you finally pick up the contents... When do you do an DEQ and FREE? After that member in the list or when your job step is finished? Alternatively, try creating your own Subsystem CONCAT and then this // DD DISP=SHR,DSN=<pdse(CONCAT)>,SUBSYS=(CONCAT,<your option>) I'm pretty sure there are solutions in the USS / OMVS world where you can achieve something like this. I believe I have seen a custom command where you pipe all those members into one thing and pass it on. But my memory is rusting again... ;-D >No, I can't think of a reason why this should be over a standard concatenation >of DD statements. But I've only had a few hours sleep per night for the past >week and so my mind is misfiring. You are needing 3 (concatenated!) weekends per work week. ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
