|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
hvishwanath
New User
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Bangalore, India
|
|
|
|
A step in a catalogued proc has concatenated data sets. For example :
PROC
//STEP1 EXEC PGM=MYPGM
//INDD DD DSN=HLQ.1.2.3
// DD DSN=HLQ.1.2.4
// DD DSN=HLQ.1.2.5
// DD DSN=HLQ.EXCLUDE.THIS
A JCL is executing this PROC. The requirement is Override the INDD in the proc from JCL, such that only the last DSN (HLQ.EXCLUDE.THIS) is removed from the concatenation. The solution is NOT to entirely override the INDD and code the first 3 DSN concatenations inside JCL itself. Is there a way to selectively omit any of the DSNs in a concatenation? Thanks for the help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| The solution is NOT to entirely override the INDD and code the first 3 DSN concatenations inside JCL itself. Is there a way to selectively omit any of the DSNs in a concatenation? |
Is there some business reason to NOT use the complete override?
I know of no way to "override" the nth dd statement in a concatenation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anuj Dhawan
Superior Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6250
Location: Mumbai, India
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Try this
| Code: |
//STEP1 EXEC PGM=MYPGM
//INDD DD
// DD
// DD
// DD DUMMY |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
If that meets TS requirement, cool.
| Quote: |
| Is there a way to selectively omit any of the DSNs in a concatenation? |
I (mis?)read this as a different requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anuj Dhawan
Superior Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6250
Location: Mumbai, India
|
|
|
|
| dick scherrer wrote: |
| I (mis?)read this as a different requirement. |
Hi Dick,
Perhaps you didn't, TS sentences says something different than what s/he has shown in example. If s/he needs something like
| Code: |
//STEP1 EXEC PGM=MYPGM
//INDD DD
// DD
// DD
// DD DUMMY
// DD |
then this is not possible, as soon as first DUMMY is encounterd all the following DDs will be treated as DUMMY (perhaps this is what You thought). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
