No, go reread the doc snippets provided. The "NEW" implies CATLG, and the CATLG DELETE are separate parameters, and it appears TSO only takes the last one. So your using DELETE overrode the CATLG. From what I read, all you needed was NEW and neither of the close disposition parameters.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joseph Reichman Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 11:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Contention problem TSO and batch job Did new catalog keep and then freed was still there Maybe sonme how there was abend that wasn’t displayed and as the last parameter was delete it deleted On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:36 PM Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:05:17 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > > >ALLOC may well take whatever you specify last and ignore what came > >before > -- I don't know. NEW CATLG DELETE is adding to the confusion. Try just > NEW CATLG. > > > Taking the last of conflicting options is typical UNIX behavior. > But many participants of this forum despise all things UNIX. > > Is this documented for ALLOCATE, or in the frontmatter for TSO > commands generally. Particular mention is needed where TSO behavior > differs from the expectation of JCL programmers. > > -- > gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
