It's long enough for DLM=THISISAUNIQUEDELIM

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 
Radoslaw Skorupka
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Check for ENQ at GDG level from rexx (non-ispf)

W dniu 07.05.2025 o 05:35, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
> On Tue, 6 May 2025 22:02:03 +0000, Lennie Bradshaw wrote:
>>     ...
>> Or you could supply the incoming data set instream (in xmit format for 
>> example). This latter method requires you to be sure you can terminate your 
>> instream data set correctly. So, the first 2 characters of each record MUST 
>> NOT match the termination string you specify in your JCL DLM value. I have 
>> used that method in the past, but scanned the incoming stream for several 
>> pairs of characters, then choose one that was not present.
>>     ...
> That's interesting.  I'm pretty sure I've at tines supplied instream SYSYN 
> with no
> explicit delimiter.  Ir was simply the last data set in the last job step.  
> But was
> there nonetheless an implied delimiter; a digraph that I fortuitously avoided?
> I.e. is there no construct notionally "DLM=none"?

Update: since few years the delimiter in can be 2 to 18 characters long.
(it applies to JES2, not JES3).
18 characters.
IMHO it's enough to find unique string.
It's more than enough to find a string which is not a part of any
programming language, command language or any human language.
Of course there's still possibility to use DD * for binary or generated
random data, but in real world I would call it very unlikely use of DD *.



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to