On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:24:25 +1200, Gainsford, Allen wrote: > >Seems to me that it would be cleaner, and probably make more sense, if JCL >supported a PARMX parameter which was *not* passed to programs in the normal >way. Instead, provide a way for programs to *ask* for the PARMX: a macro >for Assembler programs, and an LE call for HLLs. This would not break any >compatibility at all. > But it doesn't solve Eileen Barkow's problem with CICS, nor does it provide any benefit to numerous other programs such as BPXBATCH which expect long strings, possibly containing UNIX path names, in the standard R1 PARM.
But that *could* be resolved with an AC=0 wrapper that copied PARMX to the R1 PARM and invoked a target program. -- 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
