In <[email protected]>, on
12/14/2014
at 03:33 AM, Mitch <[email protected]>
said:
>I am trying to follow what you are asking, but am unsure Are you
>saying there is something in a JCL environment that should be
>reported as an error, but it is not, until execution?
No. I am saying that for historical reasons IBM treats DSN=&FOO as
equivalent to DSN=&&FOO when &FOO is undefined, and that rejecting
DSN=&FOO would break existing JCL. I am also saying that had IBM had
symbolic parameters from the beginning then it would have been a
desine error to treat the two as equivalent, and that some of the
differences between handling symbols and symbolic parameters seem
arbitrary.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
