On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:33:10 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >At 17:40 -0500 on 10/30/2009, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: An >Alternative Modest PARM Proposal: > >>Therefore, you should understand very well why this won't work. >>Such utilities will misinterpret the Long Parm as a DDN override >>list. > >There is NO REASON to send a Long Parm to these IBM utilities so this >potential glitch can easily be handled by a new PARMLIB member with a >list of programs that are NOT to be passed an extended parm (IBM >knows who they are and the NOXPARM00 member can be supplied with the >PTF or FUNCTION that adds PARMX Support). For ISV (and Home Grown >RYO) utilities that accept mult-parm parmlibs, have the vendor/author >supply the needed members to be placed into PARMLIB. > >Does this help?
No. As I recall, Shmuel's original proposal was to provide a list somewhere, preferably in PARMLIB, of programs that could not handle the long parm. You have added essentially the same list to is incompatible and excessively complicated alternative. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
