On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:54:32 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: > > >Could you explain what problem you are trying to solve with this > technique? > > > >How does it help your process to know which concatenated dataset the > data came from? Why can you not use multiple DD Statements instead? > > > It might be simpler as the OP wishes. It's possible that records in some > input data sets, > identifiable by data set name, require a variation in processing, The > technique > Massimo wishes for spares him the need to know how many such data sets > exist > or in what order they appear. > > Suppose I have a daily transaction log for each day in a month. I'd like > to concatenate > them and perform some analysis, but the processing for Sundays is slightly > different. > Having 31 DDNAMEs, of which the last (as many as 3) might be dummies may > seem > needlessly complex. > > It's a reasonable wish for an existing facility; perhaps not meriting an > RfE. > > That's in interesting, if scary, thought. I was thinking more along the lines of giving a better error message by printing something like: RECORD NUMBER 27 IN FILE 3 OF THE INPUT IN MYINPUT IS IN ERROR. THE ACCOUNT NUMBER BUBBAJOHNSON DOES NOT EXIST. -- Schrodinger's backup: The condition of any backup is unknown until a restore is attempted. Yoda of Borg, we are. Futile, resistance is, yes. Assimilated, you will be. He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
