In <[email protected]>, on 06/06/2012
at 09:20 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> said:
>//REFFING DD DDNAME=REFFED
>that REFFED could be any valid DD statement.
It can, but the results are not what you want.
>But it appears that what they
>are saying is that the following will not work:
>//REFFING DD DDNAME=REFFED
>...
>//UNRELATE DD DSN=dsname.zero,...
>//REFFED DD DSN=dsname.one,...
>// DD DSN=dsname.two,...
>// DD etc.
It will work as documented; that is, allocate REFFING to dsname.one,
swallow up REFFED and leave the two DD statements with blank names
alone. The way it is documented, IMHO, is broken as designed.
>Think about it. A
>"full" implementation would allow the following.
ITYM 'A "full" implementation would allow not just allow the following
but interpret it in a bizarre fashion, but would handle it in a
rational manner.'
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
