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
