> Why not just invert the COND= for the additional processing step? > Instead of COND=(0,EQ,DFSORT), code COND=(0,NE,DFSORT)?
<fake story> Back in the days when the need JCL was designed, people recognized the need for conditional execution of a job step. However, it was already late in the afternoon, and there was that big party tonight, so people decided to postpone further work and go off to the party. They enjoyed, they really enjoyed.... Next day, people slowly appeared at work, and, still in a drunken stupor, started to design the conditional step execution solution. COND= was chosen to be the best solution they found. </fake story> While I made this up, I have a hard time to imagine it did not happen that way. How else would can explain the weird logic behind COND= ? But then IBM recently thought of this better and invented JCL IF-THEN-ELSE. This was published with MVS/ESA some 28+ years ago. But even now, people still use the wonderful COND=. No offence intended. Happy Easter, everybody --Peter Hunkeler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
