> 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.'
Amen! Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: JES/2 Proc SYSIN Concat Error?? 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.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
