On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 23:12 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: ... > I'm interested in the comment that mixed case should be rigorously > avoided in JCL samples. My colleagues before me (Im following the > convention, so far) quite deliberately used lower case in the > "must change" strings. I assumed this would provide the clear > benefit that if a customer inadvertently neglected a change a > JCL error would result, preferable to a job's running amok. I > might be persuaded to change this, but not in time for the release > we're working on.
I have no argument where lower case is required (e.g. path names, BPXBATCH shell invocation, whatever ...), however "legacy" JCL members should be upper case. No if, no but ... Ploughing through 29 IEBCOPY steps looking for some "helpful" comments in lower case *quickly* loses its gloss. Then one progresses (FSVO "progress") to the offering from the next vendor - which, of course, has a totally different determination of "helpfulosity". Unlike a sysprog who "owns" their site, I go to a lot of different sites, and have to fit in. This often means I don't have access to my favourite tool-set, and sometimes I can't bring any in. So I work with what is shipped - hence my disdain for most of what I see. When I write procs that need modification/parameters, I use (caps) values that will generate errors if unmodified. Isn't too hard to design something that works, and doesn't inadvertently screw the end user. Glad to hear you are putting some thought into the issue. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
