On 18 May 2009 11:30:02 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote: >>The whole idea of (IBM mainframe) CoBOL still caring about blocksize is >>irritating. >>The "fix" of making BLOCK CONTAINS 0 is IMHO, not the way fixes should be. > >I really don't think this qualifies as a 'fix'. >I learned COBOL in 1976, and was taught, back then, to always use BLOCK >CONTAINS 0 RECORDS (I don't think that the last keyword was optional, then). >That was long before System Determined Blocksize was even dreamed about. > >We used it so we could easily move from disk (for testing) to tape (for real), >without re-compiling.
Yes, even before System Determined Blocksize, the system had places where the program didn't determine blocksize. It is a lie to say BLOCK CONTAINS 0 RECORDS, it would have been better to have done that by leaving out the line altogether. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
