On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:41:43 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>There were no APF authorized programs ...
>
But there was the hazard of buffer overruns even in unauthorized programs.
IBM provides features to protect its code without timely extension of such
features to customer-written code. Consider
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:21:50 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>I'm curious because others have said (in this forum?) that earliest PROCs
>>had no arguments; all modification was done by overrides. So, at that
>>time symbols didn't exist in JCL, neither as PROC formal parameters nor
>>in the (relative
There were no APF authorized programs ...
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: JCL History (was: ... PARMDD ... )
On
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:19:49 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>Ah! That shows that (at least at one time) it was possible to increase
>the length of the PARM without introducing intolerable incompatibilities.
Perhaps because the potential integrity issues were not understood at the time.
>Where's
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:25:32 -0600, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>Some time between 1967 and 1970.
>
>I think the limits of 40 or 100 characters were based on a quick way (without
>using tapes or extra punch cards) to give shortish parameters to a program
>using puch cards.
