On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:19:37PM -0400, Arthur T. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snip] > OTOH, almost anything you do within JCL hits the > problem of continuing the command across several card > images. Perhaps if the XPARM pointed to a // PARM > statement (like the // OUTPUT statement), the // PARM > statement could have less arcane continuation rules than > the PARM= parameter of the EXEC statement.
I think you had the right idea and then missed: I propose that the solution should be // PARM and make it mutually exclusive with the PARM= keyword on EXEC. Why complicate things? It's certainly not necessary for this. > As I was typing this, I realized that I think that > Gil had the right idea Yes. And it's rare that I agree with Gil. But he clearly has put a lot of thought into understanding the ramifications of various approaches. In fact, I would have proposed virtually exactly what Gil proposes if I hadn't read his message first. > This proposal doesn't make coding the parm across > statements any easier, but at least it doesn't make it any > harder. Well, actually it does make things easier. Since // PARM would be all-new, it can be thoughtfully implemented to make it easy to code long continuations correctly. As to the few people who suggested a parm dataset, that's absolutely positively the wrong answer (sorry, Skip) for the reasons others gave, primarily: no symbolic substitution. While I like one person's suggestion of DD *,SYMBOLS=YES, that should be implemented separately, regardless of the PARM solution chosen. I don't think it's the right answer to the PARM problem. /Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
