On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:58:24 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >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! > Tom Ross's explanation of the problem provides a powerful argument for keywords over positional. (It was a mistake; there's really no problem; it just looks that way.)
"... architectural deal." But better that than to replicate the code to process the alternate DDNAME list in an unbounded number of utilities, both from IBM and from ISVs, and to have the feature unavailable in products that don't choose to implement it. (Consistency, again. And the DRY principle.) Years ago in one of these lists a contributor claimed to have accomplished much of the function (he admitted not all) with SVC screening. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
