On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:37:52 -0400, Rob Schramm wrote: >On the issue of the parm length.. why not just create something new. >Sometimes retrofitting is just not practical. I vote >PARM='PARMX',PARMX='WAAAAAY LONGER THAN 100 CHARACTERS'. A bit goofy.. >but probably a lot easier to implement. Of course I am probably >oversimplifying. Kind of like how they handled 3 digit to 4 digit UCB.. >didn't really retrofit.. just made something new. > I'd be quite satisfied with this _provided_ it was compatible with the existing CALL, LINK, ATTACH, etc. argument lists. I.e. on program entry R1 points to a fullword which points to a halfword containing the length of the PARMX followed by the PARMX string.
(And that symbol substitution would work within PARMX.) But how would this facilitate implementation? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
