On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 16:12:21 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >And for JCL perhaps 255 is a reasonable limit. With only about 55 usable >columns on a JCL continuation statement, anything more than that becomes a >little unwieldy. (Yes, one might say all JCL statements are unwieldy!) > Don't denigrate the determination of programmers. If one manages to code a 1023-byte pathname spanning 19 lines (probably using an Edit macro), the system should reward such perseverance by honoring it.
(Easier with PARMDD.) Allowing allocation by relative pathname would help considerably in some cases. >But why does DYNALLOC limit to 255? With a 16-bit text unit length field it >would be easy to accommodate 1023 (or, of course, 32767 or 65535). > +1 -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
