Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:12:53 -0600, Edward Gould wrote: >> >> I think smp (NOTE without the e) was the problem a long time ago. >> There was a gotcha in that IEBUPDTE does *NOT* support

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:12:53 -0600, Edward Gould wrote: > >I think smp (NOTE without the e) was the problem a long time ago. >There was a gotcha in that IEBUPDTE does *NOT* support VB records. >IBM needed to support VB but their utilities did NOT. >IBM then forced the issue of changing clists to

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Mick Graley wrote: > > I think Ed might be right here on the SYSGEN option history, however TSO > EDIT doesn't seem to support it fully these days. > I have access to 5 very different systems each with different heritage. > Two of them are

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

I think Ed might be right here on the SYSGEN option history, however TSO EDIT doesn't seem to support it fully these days. I have access to 5 very different systems each with different heritage. Two of them are >30 years old and will date back to the SYSGEN days, one of them I'm not sure of it's

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 2016-11-15 12:16, Dyck, Lionel B. wrote: > I'm in the 255 camp and just tried a simple experiment. > > From TSO issue the Edit command: E T(ABC) CL > > This opens the old editor on dataset t.clist member abc and after adding a > few records and saving I checked the dcb which was VB,255,3120

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

Ed, Lrecl=255 here Scott On Tuesday, November 15, 2016, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On 2016-11-15 12:16, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote: > > I'm in the 255 camp and just tried a simple experiment. > > > > From TSO issue the Edit command: E T(ABC)

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 2016-11-15 12:16, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote: > I'm in the 255 camp and just tried a simple experiment. > > From TSO issue the Edit command: E T(ABC) CL > > This opens the old editor on dataset t.clist member abc and after adding a > few records and saving I checked the dcb which was

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote: > > I'm in the 255 camp and just tried a simple experiment. > > From TSO issue the Edit command: E T(ABC) CL > > This opens the old editor on dataset t.clist member abc and after adding a > few records and saving

Re: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 11/15/2016 2:23 PM, Lester, Bob wrote: HI Ed, One more, then I'll go back to lurking Was SPAC related to SPIZ? I seem to remember that SPIZ was Security Pacific (something), but then it gets cloudy... I know of no SPIZ. When I started there, it was Security Pacific

Re: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 HI Ed, One more, then I'll go back to lurking Was SPAC related to SPIZ? I seem to remember that SPIZ was Security Pacific (something), but then it gets cloudy... Thanks! BobL -Original Message- From

Re: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

Discussion List' <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: RE: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 [ EXTERNAL ] Hi Ed, Dang fat fingers! That should be BofB, or more formally, FNBofB. Thanks! BobL -Original Message- From: Lester, Bob Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3

Re: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

Hi Ed, Dang fat fingers! That should be BofB, or more formally, FNBofB. Thanks! BobL -Original Message- From: Lester, Bob Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:06 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 [ EXTERNAL ] HI Ed, Does

Old MF shops - was - RE: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

: Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 [ EXTERNAL ] On 11/15/2016 11:51 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > Ed, you and I shared some of that life at Security Pacific Bank. Too late to > check on SPAC now, but my recollection from before I met you until today, I > have always used/encountered LRECL 2

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 11/15/2016 11:51 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: Ed, you and I shared some of that life at Security Pacific Bank. Too late to check on SPAC now, but my recollection from before I met you until today, I have always used/encountered LRECL 255. SPAC is one of the places I remember using

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:00 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. Clearly, the intent was to allow up to 255-character source lines. At PSI,

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

=255 vs LRECL=259 My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. Clearly, the intent was to allow up to 255-character source lines. At PSI, we provide the option for customers to allocate our CLIST/EXEC libraries either RECFM=FB w/LRECL=80

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

I've never seen LRECL=259 in my life...well, until now! -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:11:55 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote: > >But does it matter much? Concatenating or copying between VB 255 and >VB 259 should "just work" in almost all cases, whereas trying to mix & >match either of those with FB 80 is trouble. > In JCL, I use DISP=NEW,LRECL=222,BLKSIZE=SDB.

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:59:43 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote: > >At PSI, we provide the option for customers to allocate our CLIST/EXEC >libraries either RECFM=FB w/LRECL=80 or RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. One >customer claims the industry-standard for RECFM=VB CLIST/EXEC libraries >is LRECL=255 rather than

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 11/15/2016 11:16 AM, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote: I'm in the 255 camp and just tried a simple experiment. From TSO issue the Edit command: E T(ABC) CL This opens the old editor on dataset t.clist member abc and after adding a few records and saving I checked the dcb which was VB,255,3120

Re: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:00 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. Clearly, the intent was to allow up to 255-character

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:00 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. Clearly, the intent was to allow up to 255

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

On 15 November 2016 at 13:59, Ed Jaffe wrote: > Of course, my personal observations and experiences provide nothing more > than anecdotal evidence. Like a man with two watches being unsure of the > time, I am now unsure if LRECL=259 is widespread practice or if I was

Re: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

inal Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:00 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259 My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=

LRECL=255 vs LRECL=259

My whole life I have seen variable length CLIST/EXEC libraries allocated as RECFM=VB w/LRECL=259. Clearly, the intent was to allow up to 255-character source lines. At PSI, we provide the option for customers to allocate our CLIST/EXEC libraries either RECFM=FB w/LRECL=80 or RECFM=VB