On 13 May 2005 09:53:23 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John) wrote:
>Seems to me that allowing instream data within a PROC would add little value
>unless it was accompanied by allowing variable substitution to occur within
>the instream data. Without substitution, any change desired in the instream
>data would require editing the PROC, which would affect all jobs that invoke
>it. I'm assuming that in the general sense, each job would require
>something unique in the instream data; that's why the DDNAME keyword is
>available on the DD statement.
You're right in a general sense, of course. But in my personal
experiences, the parameters that I was passing to a program via a control
file were fairly static and usually didn't change very often. So, for me
at least, having a sysin dataset embedded within a cataloged proc is
valuable, even if no symbolic substitution was performed on the data.
(Although it would definitely be a very nice feature to have.)
Eric
--
Eric Chevalier E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.tulsagrammer.com
Is that call really worth your child's life? HANG UP AND DRIVE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
