Gil wrote: >How much of the need for symbols might be satisfied nowadays by: >o JCLLIB INCLUDE members containing numerous // SET statements?
Sure.if // SET worked consistently. That's what I meant by "symbols", which was apparently unclear (I thought someone else had used that term, but am perfectly willing to believe I confused myself). &HLQ..MCS and the like. Some places in SMP/E jobs you can use these, others you cannot. Since &HLQ. as literal is never valid in those places, adding this support would be a pure addition, with no downside AFAICT. If IBM were investing in such things, which they don't appear to be. >o //SMPCNTL DD DATA,SYMBOLS=JCLONLY? (And other instream MCS.) Not sure about this one. Might help. >... reuse available facilities rather than innovating. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
