You must keep reinventing the wheel until you get it right. Meanwhile no dessert for you.
. . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:43 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Question for COBOL users On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:11:08 -0200, Paulo Roberto Leonardo Pereira wrote: > >Look at this > >https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSR27Q_4.0.7/com.ibm.rat >ional.rtc.rdz.doc/topics/rdzrtcz_int_user_build_jcl.html > I see no mention there of a "255 character limit". Am I looking in the wrong place? > >Em 06/02/2018 17:02, Paul Gilmartin escreveu: > >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:49:38 -0800, Tom Ross wrote: >> >>> For background, this is where you can avoid the 255 character limit >>> for PARM= in JCL when specifying COBOL compiler options. ... >> In what context does PARM= have a 255 character limit. I had always >> thought it was 100. >> >> But doesn't PARMDD provide a (cumbersome) circumvention? On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:01:29 -0500, Steve Smith wrote: >Really? What kind of "business requirement" is behind that? In any >case, I could only vote "who cares?" > Yup. >I am sure that there are plenty of potential objections, but it seems >to me that HLASM, Binder, and compilers should just drop their >individual parm DD support, and have them all just go with PARMDD. > How many times must this wheel be reinvented? >I don't see that PARMDD is cumbersome, certainly no more than keeping >up with multiple ways to accomplish it. > Why not simply relax the 100 (255?) character limit on JCL PARM? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
