On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:41:21 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>Sometimes within a DD concatenation; sometimes not. For example:
>
> 3 //STEP EXEC PGM=IEFBR14
> //*
> 4 //DD1 DD *
> 5 // DD PATH='/dev/./null'
> 6 // SET V1=WOMBAT
> 7 // DD PATH='/dev/./null'
> //*
> 8 //DD2 DD *
> 9 // SET V2=WOMBAT
> 10 // DD PATH='/dev/./null'
> 11 //
> STMT NO. MESSAGE
> 10 IEFC019I MISPLACED DD STATEMENT
>
>Why does it report IEFC019I at statement 10, but not at statement 7?
>
>I had grown accustomed to placing SET in complex concatenations, near
>a reference for clarity. Today was the first time I tried it after DD *.
>
>Should I submit an RCF requesting clarification or an SR for inconsistent
>behavior?
>
>I hate JCL!
>
Aargh! It's documented!:
Location in the JCL
z/OS MVS JCL Reference
SA23-1385-00
...
It cannot appear immediately after the first DD statement within a
concatenation.
YTF!? Does anyone believe it was specified that way, or instead that a coder
wrote the code and when someone stumbled on the behavior it was documented
as a restriction? I wonder if it was documented that way in the earliest JCL
reference in which SET was described?
I hate JCL!
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
