From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Briggs, Trevor (TBriggs2)
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: optional parm in CLLE
I have used a similar function in the past (using the "optional"
parameter name in the CHGVAR FROM rather than the TO variable), and I
was unaware of the fact that false positives could occur. I suppose if
there were a limited number of acceptable values for the parameter
you could check against then the chances of "accidentally" findingones
of these in a "phantom" parameter would be negligible. But in casesa
where the parameter values could be a large number of values it seems
from this thread that IBM gives us NO 100% reliable way of determining
the number of parameters passed to a CL program. Is that so?
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barbara Morris
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: optional parm in CLLE
On 1/24/2014 8:29 AM, Alan Cassidy wrote:
I just did this:
MONMSG MCH3601 EXEC(DO)
SNDPGMMSG MSG( 'Did not receive 3 parameters') TOPGMQ(*EXT)
Worked at least.
I just want to make sure that it's clear that this technique should
absolutely never be used.
It often seems to work in testing, but it's almost guaranteed to give
false positive at some point, indicating that a parameter was passedbizarre
when it wasn't.
What's especially bad about this technique is that if your program
modifies a parameter that was not actually passed, you can cause
and unpredictable errors that might show up long after your program
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact