On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:04:42 +0100, Terry Sambrooks wrote: > >2) With my bias set aside, I acknowledge that the existing two byte prefix >associated with EXEC PARM data is capable of holding a length up to 65535 >(X'FFFF') although this may appear negative depending upon field definition. > As an experiment, I tried calling BPXBATCH from Rexx with a 65535-byte parm (x'FFFF' in the length field). It executed without error, and correctly processed the entire PARM string.
>4) Would I vote for the EXEC PARM limit to be increased? On balance no. That >said I acknowledge the rising trend of combining program language run time >options with application data in the PARM has the potential to push the >boundary. > BPXBATCH is a prime example of pushing the boundary. It has adopted the desperate kludge of supporting DD STDPARM as an alternative to long PARM. But this sacrifices symbol substitution. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
