In <52f40ffb.4090...@lerctr.org>, on 02/06/2014 at 02:43 PM, Ray Mullins <m...@lerctr.org> said:
>It seems like conversion/interpretation has skipped the fact that I'm >not overriding the second DD in the concatenation and is generating >a data set name, instead of noting that it's a blank DD and just >leaving the original DD alone. > From a logic standpoint, this makes sense, No; from a logic standpoint it makes no sense to ignore the base DD when processing an override. >but I'm wondering if this is WAD At best BAD. >APARable? Only if you take the time to report it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN