COBOL does this also, right? My COBOL skills are modest to say the least, but if FOO is PIC X(5) then MOVE 'Now is the time' TO FOO silently truncates the literal to 'Now i', correct?
I'm not trying to start a language war here, just saying that the concept of "silent truncation to fit" should be well-understood by many mainframers, not just PL/Iers. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP (SPLXM) - KLM Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 12:00 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: System Symbols Question If PL/I does this, it will probably be well understood by PL/I programmers, but maybe not by others. Rexx has its own way, which will probably be well understood by Rexx programmers, but maybe not by others. System Symbol coders may belong to one or both of the above groups or to none of them. So in this case it is safest to assume nothing and apply the rules strictly, i.e. assign correctly or abend. Kees. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 16:47 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: System Symbols Question There is now long experience with the PL/I convention that assigns a source string that is longer than the [maximal allocated or declared] length of the target string with 1) truncation on the right and 2) silently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
