"Shmuel Metz , Seymour J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/28/2005
>at 09:27 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [1] "Have they stopped translating out nondisplayable characters?"
>
Others may have already answered,
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/28/2005
at 09:27 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I don't understand your comment.
Because you ignored part[1] of it and are are assuming that what
appears in the listing is identical to what appears in the source
code. That certainly didn't use to be tr
I don't understand your comment.
As previously indicated the FLAG(I,I) option became the default at the same
time as DBCS.
Therefore, the compiler error message WILL appear in the listing IMMEDIATELY
after the line inserted by the translator (indicating the column in that
line with the problem)
"Shmuel Metz , Seymour J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/23/2005
>at 07:23 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In all contexts, this message means you have a screwed up DBCS
> >literal in your source code.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
06/23/2005
at 01:33 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>With FLAG(I,I) which became the default at the same time as DBCS, the
>message *does* appear exactly AFTER the line (inserted by the
>preprocessor) which follows the originally coded line. As the mesage
>a
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
06/23/2005
at 01:36 PM, Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>So far, I haven't received any off-list or online replies to my
>pointing out my "work-in-progress" web page at:
> http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/IBM/ErrMsg.htm
>Would this type of web-page be of use
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 13:36 -0500, Bill Klein wrote:
>http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/IBM/ErrMsg.htm
>
> Would this type of web-page be of use to those who can't figure out the
> COBOL compiler messages?
For those who haven't looked: the page is a table of URLs into the
bookmanager version o
So far, I haven't received any off-list or online replies to my pointing out
my "work-in-progress" web page at:
http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/IBM/ErrMsg.htm
Would this type of web-page be of use to those who can't figure out the
COBOL compiler messages?
"McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
With FLAG(I,I) which became the default at the same time as DBCS, the
message *does* appear exactly AFTER the line (inserted by the preprocessor)
which follows the originally coded line. As the mesage also tells the
column where the problem exists, it should be pretty obvious where the
problem was
There have been so many replies and so many verging topics, that I thought
that I would reply (again) to the original message with the actual solutions
(in order of preference) to the real problem originally reported here.
Option 1 (preferred)
Use the COBOL3 (*NOT* the COBOL2) CICS Translator o
Bill Klein wrote:
"Perryman, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i.com>...
SNIP<
What is not self-describing about these is why they suddenly started
appearing when the programmer hadn't changed any of his code, that's what!
If messages start appearing af
Sorry to disagree on this one (again), but the error message tells you
exactly WHERE (what line and what column in that line) has the problem. a
VERY simple search of either the COBOL LRM or APG for the term "shift-in"
will tell you what this means and again, a search of the manual SHOULD take
you
"Perryman, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i.com>...
> >SNIP<
> >
>
> What is not self-describing about these is why they suddenly started
appearing when the programmer hadn't changed any of his code, that's what!
If messages start appearing after a migration
Bill Klein wrote:
OK, to explain ...
*ALL* the "DBCS" (or NODBCS) compiler option does is to determine how
X'0E' and
X'0D' are treated when they appear WITHIN an alphanumeric literal. When
it is
turned on, then they are treated as SHIFT-OUT/IN control characters (and
this
may be shifting to
OK, to explain ...
*ALL* the "DBCS" (or NODBCS) compiler option does is to determine how
X'0E' and
X'0D' are treated when they appear WITHIN an alphanumeric literal. When
it is
turned on, then they are treated as SHIFT-OUT/IN control characters (and
this
may be shifting to "Unicode" *or* to IB
Imbriale, Donald (Exchange) wrote:
I think you're confusing the DBCS value of the NSYMBOL option with the
DBCS option.
Well, it certainly is confusing. But I tried to make it
clear what I was saying is choosing the NATIONAL value
for the NSYMBOL option forces on the DBCS option. And
it still do
.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: DBCS as the "default" (was: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4
>migration question (COBOL)
>
>Bill Klein wrote:
>> "Steve Comstock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>>
&
Bill Klein wrote:
"Steve Comstock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
And I can't figure out why they made that change,
since DBCS is, supposedly, on its eventual way
out, to be replaced by NATIONAL (Unicode). Any
idea why the default was changed? Especially since
"Steve Comstock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> And I can't figure out why they made that change,
> since DBCS is, supposedly, on its eventual way
> out, to be replaced by NATIONAL (Unicode). Any
> idea why the default was changed? Especially since
> the vast ma
Bill Klein wrote:
If you didn't upgrade your COBOL as well as z/OS, then I would be REALLY
surprised in this change occurring. The COBOL documentation talks about the
change from NODBCS to DBCS as the "default" compiler option - in newer
releases of Enterprise COBOL. There should ALSO be a chan
If you didn't upgrade your COBOL as well as z/OS, then I would be REALLY
surprised in this change occurring. The COBOL documentation talks about the
change from NODBCS to DBCS as the "default" compiler option - in newer
releases of Enterprise COBOL. There should ALSO be a change from FLAG(I) to
F
21 matches
Mail list logo
