On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:57:21 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The form DSN=&&&SYSUID may not be explicitly documented, but its expansion
>is a direct consequence of the documented rules.
>
I trust Hayim's explanation. DSN=&&&SYSUID should not be the same as
DSN=&&userid
if the two differ. What documented rules do you mean.
>________________________________________
>From: Hayim Sokolsky
>Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:47 AM
> ...
> * As an undocumented trick, DSN=&&&SYSUID can be used to cause
> substitution as if DSN=&&userid was specified.
n the z/OS 2.5 JCL Ref. for DD: DSNAME:
....
Data set name for temporary data set
Note:
1. In general, the system treats a single ampersand (&) followed
by a character string of 1 to 8 characters as a symbolic
parameter. (See “Using system symbols and JCL symbols” on page
35.) However, if you code a data set name as a symbolic parameter
(by coding DSNAME=&xxxxxxxx), and do not assign a value to or
nullify the symbolic parameter, the system will process it as a
temporary data set name.
....
Data set name for in-stream or sysout data set
Note:
A single ampersand before a data set name in a cataloged or
in-stream procedure signifies a symbolic parameter. However, if
no value is assigned to the name on either the EXEC statement
that calls the procedure, a PROC statement in the procedure, or a
previous SET statement, the system treats the name as the last
qualifier of the data set name for an in-stream or sysout data
set.
When two similar things are described with different words, the
cautions reader is impelled to seek a semantic dirrerence.
In the earlier paragraph I see "In general" buut in the latter
"in a cataloged or in-stream procedure." Should I conclude that
the first is in fact general but the second applies only to ProCs?
Or is it likely that different writers, at different times failed to
communicate properly, arrived at different descriptions
(Conway's Law)?
Is this only trying to repeat the rules in "Determining Equivalent
JCL which it should cite instead of parroting incorrectly?
When I first encountered MVS my mentors lauded the quality of IBM
documentation (based on PLMs?) The PLMs are gone (I think) and
so the quality with a desperate attempt to convert procedural
documentation to static syntax described in common language.
--
gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
