Agreed on both points. (And failing that, c'mon man, how about a little consistency?)
Built into ATTACH would be a big architectural deal. But keywords are easy! The PL/I compiler puts the overrides in nice readable form in PARM=. Unfortunately they are both positional and subject to the 100-character limitation. (And Yes, I know about z/OS v2.1 and let's not start that thread up again.) The XLC compiler gets it pretty much right: keyword parameters, full C library syntax like PARM='LIST(MY.DATASET.NAME)', and an OPTFILE so you (a.) don't run into length restrictions and (b.) can document your option choices with comments. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: You've got to be kidding me! (Enterprise COBOL V5.1 DD overrides) On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:25:23 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >For Enterprise COBOL v4.1 and 4.2, if you are loading the compiler from >an assembler program and want to override SYSOPTF or DBRMLIB, they are >entries >20 and 21 respectively in the Alternative DD name list. > >For Enterprise COBOL v5.1, if you want to override SYSOPTF or DBRMLIB, >they are reversed at entries 21 and 20 respectively in the Alternative >DD name list. > >C'mon, man! > Dammit! o When there are so many, they should be keyworded, not positional! o And, as I've said before (more than once), this should all be handled by ATTACH, and completely transparent to the application! E.g.: ATTACH ...,ALTDD=((SYSOPTF,SYS00042),(DBRMLIB,SYS00043)) 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
