On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:28:42 -0600, John McDowell wrote: > >For the specific case we are talking about (e.g. the use of lower case >alphabetic characters in PROC/INCLUDE names) I would actually feel much more >comfortable if the parser allowed for them to be treated differently than say >a ddname. The prospect of trying to accommodate lower case alphabetic >characters in a ddname is well into the "boiling the ocean" category :-( > >I will note in passing that outside of the context of the z/OS Unix filesystem >it is difficult (but not impossible) to create a PROC or INCLUDE (member name >in a PDS or PDS/E) with lower case alphabetic characters, to the best of my >knowledge none of the predominate development tools (e.g. ISPF, etc.) allow >it. I take no position on whether they should, I simply observe they do not. >Given this circumstance pursuing lower case alphabetic characters in >PROC/INCLUDE names seems to take us perilously close to the "boiling ocean" >that I am so desperate to avoid :-) > These ojects are easily enough created/manipulated with Assembler, and Binder can easily create load modules (not only program objects) with mixed case names. I think it's a dog-in-the-manger attitude for JCL to prohibit what some (not all) utilities readily support.
I have always held that syntactic restrictions should be enforced at the most basic level: if STOW permits the name, higher level programming interfaces shouldn't prohibit it. If it is the intent of the design to allow only upper case characters in names, or to make names case-insensitive, that restriction or behavior should be built into STOW, not implemented haphazardly, inconsistently, in higher level interfaces. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
