Fully agree about the "too many solutions". If I could just use COZBATCH
everywhere by default, I would, but I'm stuck with BPXBATCH and can now at
least comment the multi-line shell scripts it supports, subject to correct
placement of semicolons and other "mangled" shell and JCL.
The bit that bit me was the sparsely-documented semicolons ('do' and 'for'
especially tricky) and the "EOF" from the '#' comment. Once bitten twice shy
:-)
Thanks also to John M for his awk example which was educational.
best regards,
Peter
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:02:29 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:52:32 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>
>>You really like all of this mangling of the shell syntax?
>>What about "here" documents (quoted or otherwise) ?
>>The addition of STDPARM only makes it suck slightly less than before :-)
>>
>>For heaven's sake, why doesn't it just read the input from DD:STDIN and
>>then send that to fd0 of the /bin/sh process?
>>
>BPXWUNIX can do that.
>Too many incomplete solutions.
>
>>That should be required for a passing grade. Extra credit if you can get
>>it to run /bin/sh as a *login* shell in the same address space, but not
>>much.
>>
>AOPBATCH. But IBM doesn't give it away.
>Long ago, I posted my BPXWUNIX wrapper at:
> http://vm.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?MVS-OE.26963
>
>Some of the mangling I did there is now unnecessary with more
>recent enhancements to BPXWUNIX.
>
>-- gil
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
