In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 05/12/2005
at 04:09 PM, Raymond Noal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Instead of messing around with the PARM= field, how about adding a
>new one like zPARM= (since these are the days of z/OS, z/VM, z/Linux
>and (soon to be) z/TPF on our new z/Series processors). Have zPARM=
>specify a DDNAME, like, zPARM=ZPARMS, then code a
>"//ZPARMS DD *" file for the job. Now you can have 15PB (random
>number for the sake of the example) of data for your parameters.
That makes sense only if they also support symbolic parameters and
static system symbols for instream data. Personally, I'd prefer just
raising the limits on PARM. Either way you face the issues that Peter
mentioned.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
