On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:20:41 -0700, Skip Robinson wrote: >CONCAT is not a standard TSO/E command. It's likely a Rexx or CLIST, in >which case you can look at the code to see what it does. If it's an RYO >command processor, you may not have the source. > I apologize for excessive brevity, indolence. Earlier in the thread, I said, more fully (still trimming here): ... call BPXWDYN 'alloc dd(SYSLIB) shr dsn(SYS1.MACLIB) msg(2)' call BPXWDYN 'alloc rtddn(CAT1) shr dsn(SYS1.MODGEN) msg(2)' call BPXWDYN 'concat ddlist(SYSLIB,'CAT1') msg(2)' ... Not Rexx, not CLIST, not RYO, source not available:
Requesting dynamic concatenation z/OS Using REXX and z/OS UNIX System Services SA23-2283-00 http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v2r1/topic/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.bpxb600/bpx1rx76.htm >I agree with your earlier comment that handling concatenations may be >different from single data sets because of the most likely usage of them. >A concatenation is pretty useless unless you run a process that works on >multiple data sets. The most common usage, SYSPROC/SYSEXEC, requires that >specific DDNAME and would be meaningless with a system-generated DDNAME. >OTOH there are some processes that require a data set (or volume) to be >allocated under any random DDNAME; they just have to be allocated. In >those cases--almost never a concatenation--a system-generated DDNAME is >fine. > Hardly "pretty useless". Lots of readers here have sometimes coded in JCL: //SYSLIB DD DISP=SHR,DSN=SYS1.MACLIB // DD DISP=SHR,DSN=SYS1.MODGEN ... without assigning a specific DDNAME to SYS1.MODGEN; equivalent to what my Rexx sample(s) do. >From: Paul Gilmartin >Date: 04/02/2014 02:50 PM >Subject: Re: FREE DDNAME with concatenated datasets? >Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> > ... > allocate dd(ddn) dsn(dsn1) > allocate dd(ddn2) dsn(dsn2) > concat ddlist(ddn,ddn2) > free ddn On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:24:45 -0500, Richard Peurifoy wrote: > >This makes sense to me. > >If I specifically allocate two files, I would expect to have to >free two files. > >The free of ddn de-concats the files and frees ddn. On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:50:17 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > allocate dd(ddn) dsn(dsn1,dsn2) > free ddn > >... frees both catenand data sets. But: "makes sense" or not, I remain curious about the difference between the control block structures created by the two processes. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN