In <4aa0113f.6f0f.008...@efirstbank.com>, on 09/03/2009
at 06:55 PM, Frank Swarbrick <frank.swarbr...@efirstbank.com> said:
>"Certain classes of I-O status values indicate fatal exception
>conditions. These are: any that begin with the digit 3 or 4, and any that
>begin with the digit 9 that the implementor defines as fatal."
That seems to say that IBM complied.
>So in this case IBM has chosen to make status '97' not only "not fatal",
>but in fact absolutely successful. I am unable to determine of the
>standard actually allows a '9' error to be considered successful, or if
>it should only be a non-fatal or fatal error.
Does the standard define successful? Does it distinguish between
successful and non-fatal?
>Anyway, the point(!) to all of this is I would like to make a
>requirement to IBM Enterprise Cobol to have an option to no longer set a
>file status of 97 when this occurs, but rather to set the file status to
>00.
That sounds reasonable.
>So since 97 doesn't seem to be useful
What it seems to you may not be what it seems to others. It certainly
seems useful to me.
>Yes, I realize we "should" simply change the programs to conform to the
>IBM compiler. But my feeling is that it's the status 97 that does not
>"conform" to the Cobol standard,
That's reasonable only if you misquoted the text from the standard earlier
in your message; the current behavior certainly conforms to what you
quoted.
>Any thoughts?
Go through channels to endorse the Share requirement.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
