On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:32:48 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: >Thanks to Kolusu, I re-examined my DD statement, and UNIT=3390 >was one char too much and so it became UNIT=339. > (That seems to have been an off-list communication; Idon't see it in the archives.)
Did Kolusu explain what syntactic production resulted in UNIT=339? in <https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=up-syntax-1> I see only: {UNIT=([ddd ] [,unit-count] [,DEFER][,SMSHONOR]) } [/ddd ] [,P ] [, ] [/dddd ] [, ] [device-type [group-name {UNIT=AFF=ddname } >Fixing that DD statement solved this problem. Please show the DD statement before and after fix. >But I would have thought the DD statement should have been failed >for an incorrect value. Perhaps SMS saved me by applying default >info. > IBM has a harmful custom of not fixing deficient syntax error reporting. Long ago, Peter Relson offered the explanation that such undocumented constructs might have private uses within IBM. More recently, Jonathan Scott reported that a manifest misbehavior could not be repaired because of compatibility: some users may be relying on the incorrect operation. Beyond that, it was indolent design for a single keyword, UNIT, to have (at least) three different semantics distinguished only by different subparameter values. A more robust design would have used three different keywords. >When I get time, I'm going to experiment with this. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
