Mark Zelden wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:28:52 +0200, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
30 years ago or earlier it was fine beacuse of punched cards.
Nowadays JCL non-blank continuation is very unpopular (guess why),
even IBM removed it from JCL course.
You can still see it being used/distributed
Paul Gilmartin writes:
The JCL RM does not say a nonblank in a continuation column is required.
Once upon a time---Before Paul was born?---JCL statements were written as
HLASM source statements are still written (in the absence of an ICTL
assembler statement). In an 80-byte card image column
Hmm... I would hate to have to scroll 32K to the right... I definitely
prefer 72 columns in 400+ lines to 32k columns in 1 line
- --
I agree, it is nice to have all the data accessible such that only vertical
scrolling is required. But what if you coded one of those lines wrong and had
to
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/15/2005
at 09:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What's a sequence number?
Standard TSO rules.
What if the sequence numbers are on the left?
That's standard for RECFM=VB.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/15/2005
at 10:13 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The JCL RM does not say a nonblank in a continuation column is
required.
Correct answer to the wrong question, because it doesn't say that
continuation is required. It does, however, tell you how to do
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 05/16/2005
at 08:12 AM, Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is one of those areas where ISPF's archaic limitations show
through. It's wonderful for editing row/column oriented data with
less than (say) 80 bytes per line. It sucks for long(er) lines and
more
In a recent note, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) said:
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:18:08 -0300
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/15/2005
at 09:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin [log in to unmask] said:
What's a sequence number?
Standard TSO rules.
What if the sequence numbers are on the left?
on 5/16/05 1:35 PM, Paul Gilmartin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a recent note, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) said:
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:18:08 -0300
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/15/2005
at 09:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin [log in to unmask] said:
What's a sequence number?
Standard
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/13/2005
at 04:21 PM, Leonard Woren [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suggest that command language is REXX. I have written a number of
production batch jobs with basically no JCL and the heavy lifting in
REXX simply because it was completely impossible to do what I needed
But IBM *did* create a cross-platform unified procedure language
specification.
See:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/E04A2A01/CCONTENT
S
Oh, well,
We all know what happened to SAA, don't we? G
Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL
In fact, PARM= is limited to 100 bytes. It can take more than 1 line of
JCL. So 80-byte limit for jobcards is not an issue in this context.
.
I totally disagree. Longer JCL cards would solve a lot of problems in
specifying PARMS that span records.
I have always hated the 80-byte card
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 80 byte jcl record limit
While the 80 character limit has a long history, I have
In a recent note, [log in to unmask] said:
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:21:41 -0400
The biggest problem I see is that interactive device one uses to view / edit
that JCL. While a mod-5 terminal exist (to display 133 characters) the
standard 27 lines or is it 24 lines is very limiting.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
| This list's contributors had to enlighten me, once. They fixed that a
| while back:
They fixed it? Wasn't it this way since the dawn of time?
- --
~ With kind Regards|\ _,,,---,,_
~ZZZzz /,`.-'`'
List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Low, David
Sent: Friday May 13 2005 06:58
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: 80 byte jcl record limit
Sorry if this is a stupid question...
Is there, or has there been any requirement of increasing the 80 byte record
limit of jcl? Reading the PARM= thread
15 matches
Mail list logo