[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [open-cobol-list] Re: OC issues - number 7

From: Bill Klein
Subject: RE: [open-cobol-list] Re: OC issues - number 7
Date: Wed Jan 18 14:01:09 2006

Just so it is clear, when you place a COMP on a group item, it does NOT make
the group item COMP, only the items under it.  This is why the '02 Standard
introduced the new


clause.  This clause makes the group have the USAGE as well as sub-items.
There is no 

so you would need to code a REDEFINES to treat the group item as COMP. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden On 
> Behalf Of Roger While
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:45 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: [open-cobol-list] Re: OC issues - number 7
> John,
> This is typical of what one sees on old mainframe programs.
> In fact, judging by the names, what Sergey has done is to reduce
> the problem to a test example.
> The reason that constructs like this were done in the old
> days was to conserve memory. Effectively "packing" the
> fields. Defining each field on an 01 level would align the
> field on the machines natural boundary therefore taking
> much more room. This did not have any runtime performance
> consequences on alignment tolerant machines like the 390.
> Roger
> >It looks like very bad code to me. You define the group item "T"
> >as computational. Then you define subfields under it.
> >Each of these fields are signed, which means
> >that the fields have to have room for a sign byte or nibble.
> >Also, a COMP field soes not measure out the same length as its
> >count in decimal digits. An S9(4) field, depending on the
> >hardware, may require  various lengths in bytes. On a word
> >oriented machine it could be a half word or full word.
> >
> >There is no need to define the group item as COMP. That
> >definition is best left to the elementary items, those with PIC
> >clauses. Indeed there is no real need to group the above data
> >fields at all.  They can all be defined as 01 or 77. Just because
> >the standard says you can do someting doesn't mean that you
> >should do something. I cannot ever recall having assigned COMP,
> >COMP-3 etc. to a group item. And I have been writing COBOL since
> >1968.
> >
> >We waste time trying to write nonsense code code designed to break
> >compilers. The answer in every case is to write sensible code.
> >Given the fact that major features like the SCREEN SECTION are
> >still missing, playing around with silly scenarios is not useful.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep 
> through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  
> dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> open-cobol-list mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]