Paul:
Too bad Schmuel isn't still around he could make the argument .
The "design" "flaw" is embedded in the OS all over the place from
start to finish. It would break existing code and some code (like
TSO) that it would not work anymore as that is one of the many
reasons TSO is dead (you pick your word). It would break just about
all user code and it would have to be rewritten as well. From
Compiler to OS it would just break. MVS would probably have to be
rewritten from scratch. It could probably be done but with the
rewrite of user code, the community wouldn't stand for it.
Ed
On Mar 10, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:20:42 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
On Mar 10, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
PARMDD is a kludge. They ought simply to have allowed a longer
PARM.
If PARMDD allows substitution of system symbols, that should have
been
supported likewise in EXEC PARM.
Paul:
If you change the 255 character limit you will break the entire OS.
It was a design flaw from day 1, although you would never get the
designers to acknowledge it.
Which "255 character limit"? And "break the entire OS" is a pretty
sweeping statement. But I suppose that if it prevented IPL the
entire OS could be considered broken. But surely they could fix that.
Storage was expensive when some of those limits were set. It's
now almost a million times cheaper. It's time that was exploited.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
