On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:25:32 -0600, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >Tom Marchant wrote: > >>Some time between 1967 and 1970. > >I think the limits of 40 or 100 characters were based on a quick way (without >using tapes or extra punch cards) to give shortish parameters to a program >using puch cards. Or so it was told to me by an oldie years ago. > My surmise, also.
>Amazing how they worded same things then and now. > When was "dataset" banished in favor of "data set"? >>See page 85 of >>http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/os/R19_Jun70/GC28-6704-0_JCL_Reference_Rel_19_Jun70.pdf On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:33:42 -0600, Tom Marchant <m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>When did it change to 100? > >Some time between 1967 and 1970. > >See page 85 of >http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/os/R19_Jun70/GC28-6704-0_JCL_Reference_Rel_19_Jun70.pdf >for OS/360, dated June, 1970 > >See also page 18 of the fifth edition of the OS/360 JCL manual, dated >March, 1967, where the limit is specified as 40 characters. > >http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/os/R01-08/C28-6539-4_OS_JCL_Mar67.pdf > Ah! That shows that (at least at one time) it was possible to increase the length of the PARM without introducing intolerable incompatibilities. Where's the PROC statement described? I find it neither in the ToC nor in the Index although there are numerous mentions of "catalogued" proc[edures]. (PROCs aren't catalogued; procedure libraries are.) I'm curious because others have said (in this forum?) that earliest PROCs had no arguments; all modification was done by overrides. So, at that time symbols didn't exist in JCL, neither as PROC formal parameters nor in the (relatively recent) SET statment. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
