On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:56:35 -0500, William H. Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Holst noted that an IBM SRL states: > >> 1. Overriding statements can appear in any order when >> they explicitly specify the step that is being >> overridden. > >This is apparently the "missing" documentation. However, >it is not completely technically correct, because it is >obviously not, in fact, necessary that "they explicitly >specify the step that is being overridden." > >Thanks for the heads-up. > >-- >WB > If you go on to read the next paragraph it explains what happens when the step is not specified (it uses the step name from the last DD statement that did specify a step name, and if none exists the first step in the proc is overridden.) The paragraph that follows further clarifies things by stating that overriding DD statements must appear in the order of the steps in the proc. It is misleading to take one paragraph in isolation. jh ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
