On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:56:19 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote:

>-----------------------------<snip>--------------------------------
>Wow! Do you have ANY idea of who you just challenged??? I see blood and
>the streets, and it won't be Chris'.
>-------------------------------<unsnip>---------------------------
>While I agree that Chris needs a better understanding of all the issues
>involved, I must admit that I agree with the sentiments expressed.
>
>Yes, compatability must be maintained, as ugly as it may be. Making a
>major change now, after 45+ years, could cause major chaos and
>discontent in MANY shops.
>
And you, also, need a better understanding.  No one is proposing any
change that will cause existing dusty programs with existing dusty
JCL to fail.  (Well, disregarding the possibility that someone is
deliberately coding an oversize PARM with the intent of causing a
JCL error.  Is anyone actually doing that?)  Even so, each innovation
to JCL, such as the OUTPUT statement, the SET statement, the IF
statement, allowing nested PROC calls, etc. has caused some constructs
that previously would have received JCL errors now to execute, even
in some cases with unintended results.  Do you call those new
behaviors incompatibilities?  Did you object to them as such when
they appeared?  And this is not even considering the impact of
those innovations on JCL syntax checkers.  None of those raises
a valid objection, nor should a longer PARM (or PARMX).

--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

Reply via email to