Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-18 Thread R.S.
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

Re: 80-byte JCL record limit

2005-05-16 Thread john gilmore
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Low, David
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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?

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-16 Thread Ed Gould
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-15 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
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

Fw: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-14 Thread Bill Klein
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-13 Thread EA MacNEIL
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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-13 Thread McKown, John
-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

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-13 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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.

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-13 Thread Volker Bandke
-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 /,`.-'`'

Re: 80 byte jcl record limit

2005-05-13 Thread Ray Mullins
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