IBM provided the solution long ago, a command. Clearly there are
architectural reasons IBM has so they have not changed the parameter
behavior in CL. They've had plenty of opportunity to, but have chosen not

Don't like commands, fine, create a user space and stuff the parameter in
there, then grab it from the target program. Don't like user spaces, OK,
data queue, or data areas, or even a single record file. I'm sure others
will come up with more alternatives, maybe one you'll like. All have
positives/negatives but to complain that IBM has not changed a behavior you
don't agree with is not going to help.

Have you put in an RFE on this? IBM uses RFEs as a primary tool to decide
what enhancements to make.

Understanding the why is 90% of the solution.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:57 AM Gerald Magnuson <gmagqcy.midrange@xxxxxxxxx>

btw, every time this question comes up ( in over 35 years on the
platform). I steam with contempt for IBM for allowing this to continue.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by 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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.