On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/02/2005
at 12:05 AM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
That was viewing it with SDSF.
Then why did you write ISPF?
I didn't write ISPF -- I wrote "viewed through the eyes of ISPF, with
a spool dataset listing". It was in the context of a discussion of
IBM supplied development tools available to view spool listings.
Without considering the cool new options like WSAD or WSED, or even
the slightly moldy options, like WSA, just plain vanilla ISPF Edit/
Browse is going to be the application that displays your data when
you view a spool dataset listing.
See, this is the problem that occurs when you take one small piece of
something, perhaps a partial quote of an email, or perhaps the
message number of a syntax error, and try to understand it without
its context.
Words mean things in relation to the other words around them, just as
lexical elements in a source file have a relationship to the other
lexical elements in the same source file. Trying to separate them
can result in altered meanings and misunderstandings.
If a person writing Cobol is not conversant with Cobol then the best
thing that can happen to them is a "Read the LRM" message.
No; such messages are singularly unhhelpful. It *might* be helpful to
direct them to a specific section of the LRM.
There is a section of the LRM named "SHIFT-IN" and another section
named "SHIFT-OUT" that appear in the LRM Table of Contents. Each is
as brief as any M&C entry, perhaps half a page, but explains it in
great detail. You think this is not enough?
The message includes the row and column of the offending byte. As
well as a description of its offense.
FSVO "description"; it is one that was unintelligible to the
programmers.
In what possible way could you consider that 'unintelligible'?
In all the ways that I have already explained. By the empirical
evidence.
On the contrary.
Three non-Cobol programmers have chimed in, you, Ed G. and the OP
have all said that it made sense to you. Even though you and EG
would like an M&C for use by the less-gifted.
Two Cobol programmers, myself and Bill K., have chimed in that it
made sense to us.
No one has claimed that it was unintelligible. The OP only said:
"Our developers are getting IGYPS0157-E and IGYPS0158E messages when
they try and compile a CICS COBOL programs..."
There was not a statement about their confusion with the text of the
message.
(I could see a valid complaint that it was an "error" level message
instead of a "warning". E-level messages might break compile procs,
cause link steps to be bypassed, etc. -- this is bad behavior for a
literal that was accepted as written.)
But the message being unintelligible? No, that was not claimed.
The listing already provides the 'bad text' with the message.
Which part of "in hexadecimal" don't you understand? If you believe it
is unnecessary, say so, but to claim that it is there is dishonest.
You can rely on the "compiler used to translate out non-
displayables". You even got me to question the behavior and test
it. But when Bill K. says the compiler doesn't do that, it is very
likely that the compiler doesn't do that. He is, after all, one of
the worlds leading authorities on Cobol.
The value is clearly there in the listing. Your refusal to look at
the value will not make it go away.
(There might be a joke about Schrodinger's byte in there somewhere...)
Using your theory above, one would think that a programmer moving
from an APOS to a non-APOS shop would be paralyzed with fear at the
sight of "" characters?
You obviously don't un derstand my theory.
What I really don't understand about your theory is that here:
SM: "...and explain what hexadecimal data are, and how to
display them, in terms understandable to a COBOL programmer?"
SM: "How many COBOL programmers know about hexadecimal
display?"
You say that Cobol programmers are clueless about what hexadecimal
data are or how to view them.
But here, you say that the hexadecimal value is helpful to resolving
the problem and should be made available:
SM: "e.g., a quote in hex of the offending text"
SM: "That's a lot less helpful than giving the value."
If the Cobol programmer in question is so completely ignorant, as you
suggest in the first case -- what makes you think the value you asked
for in the second case would be of any use at all?
Why do you assume any knowledge of DBCS is needed at all? Knowing
that the Cobol reserved words SHIFT-IN/SHIFT-OUT are a pair that must
appear together should be enough for anyone to fully understand this
message. And that knowledge is provided by the existing text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
