I still don't see why there would be a problem with just PARM= behaving just as it does now.
and having a new PARMX= (or whatever) that sets up exactly the same thing except that the string can be up to whatever that two-byte length field allows (I don't remember if it's supposed to be signed or unsigned ... I would guess that it's signed)? you can use PARM= OR PARMX= on an EXEC statement but not both ... if you leave your JCL alone for old stuff, they should still work and not have to worry about these long PARMs. if you change your JCL to use PARMX= then you should make sure your program does handle a long parm string. if YOU choose to switch to PARMX= and it results in a problem, then it's YOUR fault. --Stephen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
