On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:29:40 -0800, retired mainframer wrote:
>Wouldn't it be easier to take a command like LISTDS and paste a couple of
>dozen (or hundred) DSNs between the parentheses and see when it finally
>complains rather than see how many ways this thread can be hijacked.
>
Excellent
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:33:11 -0500, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>I believe a path can be up to 1024.
>
Sort of. IIRC, that's the value in the Users Guide, Command Ref., et al.
But it's subject to change with new filesystypes. It might be different in
a future OS release. Hopefully not smaller.
Legacy
W dniu 2016-03-10 o 22:26, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
Got my Black Team coat on.
Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than that imposed by
the aggregate length of the various operands?
I think the limit is 32kB. Of course other limits, like p.6 "screen
capacity" apply.
However
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:26:13 -0600 Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
:>Got my Black Team coat on.
:>Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than that imposed by
:>the aggregate length of the various operands?
:>ISPF Command Shell imposes a
I believe a path can be up to 1024.
-teD
Original Message
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 20:04
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: How long can a TSO command be?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:38:27 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote
to:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: How long can a TSO command be?
>
> Got my Black Team coat on.
>
> Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than t
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
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.
>
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
On 10 March 2016 at 16:26, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than that imposed
by the aggregate length of the various operands?
IKJSCAN and IKJPARSE are probably what define this, though there may be
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:38:27 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>On 03/10/2016 04:26 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> Got my Black Team coat on.
>It depends. You doing SUBMIT? You feeding your JCL to the INTRDR
>with JES2 or JES3?
>
I know that in JES2 only cols 1-72 of the source statement are processed.
On 03/10/2016 04:26 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Got my Black Team coat on.
Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than that imposed by
the aggregate length of the various operands?
ISPF Command Shell imposes a limit of 240. Absurdly small given that a PATH()
for ALLOCATE may be
Got my Black Team coat on.
Is there any limit to the length of a TSO command other than that imposed by
the aggregate length of the various operands?
ISPF Command Shell imposes a limit of 240. Absurdly small given that a PATH()
for ALLOCATE may be up to 255.
Panel ISRTSOA accepts 3 x ZSCREENW
13 matches
Mail list logo
