> You're peculiarly unwilling to discuss the > case in which the PARM string is simply writable.
No, I'm simply unwilling to pretend that it is the only case. ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pass PARM by reference to COBOL On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:23:33 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> Irrelevant pedantry. > >Nonsense. > Projection. >> I hope that my explicit qualification, "as an Assembler program might" >> precludes cases in which the PARM is in R/O storage, > >It doesn't. If the caller is RENT from an authorized concatenation and the >PARM is a constant in the csect, it will be in SP252. > In that case I'd hope the COBOL program would fail the same as the Assembler program. You're peculiarly unwilling to discuss the case in which the PARM string is simply writable. "I don't know," or merely silence might be a suitable answer, but one which you're too seldom willing to give. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
