o Simple copy; no editing; no Alias, plus

Not sure what you tried but here is an example of having comments for 
IEBGENER Sysin control cards. Took the example documented in the manual 
and copied a 80 byte file.

//STEP0100 EXEC PGM=IEBGENER 
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* 
//SORTDIAG DD DUMMY 
//SYSUT1   DD DISP=SHR,DSN=input file 
//SYSUT2   DD SYSOUT=* 
//SYSIN    DD * 
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7----+----8
 
 
  GENERATE  MAXFLDS=3,MAXLITS=11                  $ COMMENT LINE # 1 
    RECORD  FIELD=(10,'**********',,1),           $ COMMENT LINE # 2 
            FIELD=(5,1,HE,11),FIELD=(1,'=',,16)   $ COMMENT LINE # 3 
    LABELS  DATA=INPUT                            $ COMMENT LINE # 4 
    RECORD  LABELS=2                              $ COMMENT LINE # 5 
//* 

Thanks,
Kolusu



From:   Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]>
To:     [email protected]
Date:   12/20/2016 11:09 AM
Subject:        Re: IEBGENER SYSIN Comments?
Sent by:        IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]>



On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:25:49 -0600, Bill Woodger wrote:

>If you only need to be able to differentiate, how about using the 
"label"? Starting in column one and extending all the way to column eight 
if you need it, just make a reference (more contracted than your comment 
may have been intended to be) to each particular execution.
> 
If the rest of the record is blank, I get RC=12;
    IEB339I COMMAND MISSING PRECEDING COL.71

The best approach seems to be using a mostly harmless command (reasserting 
a default)
and comment in the rest of the line.

>What functionality of IEBGENER are you using?
> 
o Simple copy; no editing; no Alias, plus

o Copying attributed from SYSUT1 (which I can't control) to SYSUT2.


On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:22:22 -0500, Steve Smith wrote:
>> >
>> ...  But I have used
>> them to create aliases in batch JCL.  Is there a better way?
>
>There are other ways, but if IEBGENER works for your task, then that's
>great.  I'd probably be more inclined to use IEBUPDTE, but the syntax is
>completely different, and may not be suitable for your purposes. And I
>doubt it supports comments either (I didn't check).
> 
o Does IEBUPDTE restrict me to fixed-80?

o Does IEBUPDTE require control records before/after the data, which
  requires an existing file be copied to a temporary data set to insert
  them?

o Does IEBUPDTE tolerate data records which may contain "./" in the first
  two columns?

o Does IEBUPDTE require sequence numbers?

>Bottom line is your usage and desire for commenting ability are perfectly
>valid.  Just don't think you're going to get much traction on it.

-- 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

Reply via email to