There were documented cases where you still needed an explicit block size for the for the concatenation. Based on the OP, it would appear that there still are.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: BLKSIZE=0 (was: Crazy ...) On Tue, 7 May 2019 15:33:39 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Well, removed except when it wasn't; there were caveats. > ??? >________________________________________ >From: Tom Marchant >Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:02 AM > >>What about BUFL=? As I recall, I used to use this to keep from >>having problems with concatenations... > >Yes, until about 25 years ago, when the requirement that the first >data set of a partitioned data set concatenation have the largest >BLKSIZE was removed. > Silly (naive?) me. I just coded an overriding BLKSIZE on the first catenand. Or supplied a leading empty temp DSN with suitable attributes. Would that satisfy the "caveats"? Same for LRECL. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
