In <[email protected]>, on 02/06/2014
at 02:43 PM, Ray Mullins <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
