On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:49:38 -0800, Tom Ross wrote: > >Our concern is, would this affect current users of SYSOPTF? Are there users >of SYSOPTF with COBOL who sometimes compile with NOOPTFILE and leave the >DD statement for SYSOPFT in their JCL/Changeman compile jobs? >If so, then automatically accessing SYSOPTF without using OPTFILE could >cause problems. > Doesn't IBM reserve DDNAMES beginning with "SYS" for IBM's own use? If so, then unless IBM makes an affirmative statement that with NOOPTFILE SYSOPTF is ignored, IBM should be free to take any action whatever with that DDNAME. I know a precedent where IBM changed behavior of a DDNAME with no previous meaning.
If IBM strives for minimum disruption, even of nonconforming use, choose a different DDNAME, say SYSOPTX, and specifi that: o With OPTFILE, SYSOPTF supplies options. o With NOOPTFILE, SYSOPTF is ignored, but if SYSOPTX appears in the job step, that DDNAME supplies options. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
