On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 15:35:13 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: >Gil wrote: >>How much of the need for symbols might be satisfied nowadays by: >>o JCLLIB INCLUDE members containing numerous // SET statements? > >Sure.if // SET worked consistently. That's what I meant by "symbols", which >was apparently unclear (I thought someone else had used that term, but am >perfectly willing to believe I confused myself). > I introduced "symbols". Shmuel may have reintroduced it. Are we thinking of the same JCL SET? Where is its behavior inconsistent?
> ... &HLQ..MCS and the like. Some places in SMP/E jobs you can use these, > others you cannot. Since &HLQ. as literal is never valid in those places, > adding this support would be a pure addition, with no downside AFAICT. If IBM > were investing in such things, which they don't appear to be. > I was assuming it was needed only in JCL statements and instream data sets. Where else do you see a need for symbol substitution? >>o //SMPCNTL DD DATA,SYMBOLS=JCLONLY? (And other instream MCS.) >Not sure about this one. Might help. > >>... reuse available facilities rather than innovating. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
