In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/27/2005
at 05:06 AM, Dave Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Oh yes. Our Net Nanny is VERY strict, no possibility of smut is
>allowed.
IME, there's a far higher chance of getting smut from e-mail than from
Usenet. If they're worried about smut, they'd do far be
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/26/2005
at 12:12 PM, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>usenet
>usegroups
>newsgroups
>listservs
>The subtleties between these I've never really
>focused on, but they are becoming important to
>me now.
Usenet and[1] Network News refers to the facility. The
Steve (C),
if you still need a newsserver, there are a number of totally free
newsservers around on the internet, no subscription needed, usually no
posting allowed, but you don't need this since you must post via email.
If you need one, Google for "free newsservers", there are lists maintained
by
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:49:57 -0500, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
---snip-
>>
>2. Do other companies restrict newsgroups or usenet like we do?
>
Oh yes. Our Net Nanny is VERY strict, no possibility of smut is allowed.
At least in EAME, I couldn't say about the ROW. It
I see that Steve Samson already posted some instructions
for you. If you're still having trouble let me know and
maybe I can send you some screen shots of the config
panels or something.
--
Jeff
Steve Comstock said the following on 06/26/2005 11:25 AM:
Jeffery Swagger wrote:
"Usenet" and "new
Steve Samson wrote:
Steve,
Go to Tools-Account Settings to set up each newsgroup account. The one
for IBM-MAIN as a newsgroup is any general newsgroup server, usually one
provided by your ISP. If you can't get here that way, try Teranews.com.
Once an account is set up, you may then subscribe
In a message dated 6/26/2005 10:19:06 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Usenet" and "newsgroups" tend to be used interchangeably,
but they're not strictly the same. The main line groups
like comp.*, soc.* and so on are centrally administered
by some organization whose na
Steve,
Go to Tools-Account Settings to set up each newsgroup account. The one
for IBM-MAIN as a newsgroup is any general newsgroup server, usually one
provided by your ISP. If you can't get here that way, try Teranews.com.
Once an account is set up, you may then subscribe to specific newsgrou
Jeffery Swagger wrote:
"Usenet" and "newsgroups" tend to be used interchangeably,
but they're not strictly the same. The main line groups
like comp.*, soc.* and so on are centrally administered
by some organization whose name escapes me at the moment.
In any case, you need a newsreader client to
"Usenet" and "newsgroups" tend to be used interchangeably,
but they're not strictly the same. The main line groups
like comp.*, soc.* and so on are centrally administered
by some organization whose name escapes me at the moment.
In any case, you need a newsreader client to read/post
to the groups
...
And why were all those pages left blank intentionally ?
...
We used to call that
“The IBM oxymoron”.
A page stating it's blank, by definition cannot be blank.
-teD
(The secret to success is sincerity.
If you can fake that,
you've got it made!)
---
" and also "Eich Verboten" :) .
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Zitzelberger
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 8:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
--SNIP-
And why were all those pages left blank intentionally ?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Joe Zitzelberger
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question
On Jun 24, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
--SNIP---
NOTE WELL:
Although this topic comes up occasiona
Joe,
I'm not sure that most people have unsenet available at work. I read
the list both at work and at home from the newsgroup, but as far as I
know, I'm still the only one where I work that has access to newsgroups.
A couple of years ago, I was getting so much spam that I decided to
change
On Jun 24, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
--SNIP---
NOTE WELL:
Although this topic comes up occasionally in IBM-MAIN, there
really are
VERY FEW "
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
--SNIP---
NOTE WELL:
Although this topic comes up occasionally in IBM-MAIN, there
really are
VERY FEW "questions" in either comp.lang.cobol or TEK-TIPS about
On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
--SNIP---
NOTE WELL:
Although this topic comes up occasionally in IBM-MAIN, there really
are
VERY FEW "questions" in either comp.lang.cobol or TEK-TIPS about "what
does
the following IBM COBOL compiler
"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 07:23 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>While the preprocessors usually do a decent job, blind faith in their
> abilities is excessive. There are many cases where they can produce
> errors in a compile. How will having more documentatio
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
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
06/23/2005
at 11:31 AM, Tom Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>I assure you that the compiler writers find the messages totally
>>informative.
>For most of them that is true.
Well, yes, but the compiler writers should not be the target audience.
I assure you that prog
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/23/2005
at 10:15 AM, David Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Above notwithstanding, I recognize that it is MUCH easier to get a
>RCF accepted than an APAR,
No way. The response to an RCF is highly idiosyncratic, there is often
no feedback and there is no appeal m
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:09 AM, Thomas Conley wrote:
Not at all.
Just because you find a shift-in in your source doesn't mean the
error message is at fault. If you look at your listing and
actually see a shift in there, then you might want to complain
about the preprocessor that placed i
- Original Message -
From: "W. Kevin Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: "Message Standards" w9as: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration
question (COBOL)
There is an IBM corporate
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:15 PM
Subject: "Message Standards" w9as: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration
question (COBOL)
Tom,
You say this in this message an
On Jun 23, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Bill Klein wrote:
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 compi
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Perryman, Brian wrote:
---SNIP-
I feel that I'm being judged here, and in some previous posts, on
shoddy workmanship. I should point out that this was on our test LPAR,
where we specifically let developers and users loose to see what they
can br
On Jun 23, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/22/2005
at 07:00 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
And you forgot to terminate or continue in accordance with the rules.
No, *you* forgot that he was using the preprocessor. The data
Bill Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
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 prepro
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
dress and review it from there.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Bill Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
So far, I haven't received any off-list or online rep
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex R.
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:48 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration
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
re getting IGYPS0157-E and IGYPS0158E messages when they
try and compile a CICS COBOL program on z/OS 1.4 in Enterprise Cobol of z/OS
and OS/390 V3.2.
>
> I can't find these blasted messages documented anywhere!! Is there some
convoluted format for decoding them?
>
> I sus
"Thomas Conley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David,
>
> Yes, I am passionate about this issue because I have wasted countless
hours
> debugging problems related to so-called "self-documenting" error
messages. I
> find it amazing that the COBOL developers can thu
>SNIP<
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Clark Morris
While someone should have caught the change in options (something I was
normally paranoid about when going to a new release)
>UNSNIP<
I feel that I'm being judged here, and in
On 23 Jun 2005 07:16:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 09:16 -0400, Thomas Conley wrote:
>> I bet you think that the BPX messages coming out of ISHELL are also
>> self-documenting.
>
>Aw, c'mon Tom. There are some excellent decafs -- you should try one.
>
>The C
On Jun 23, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Bill Klein wrote:
"Perryman, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wgc.win2k.corp.tns
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 co
David,
My responses sprinkled below.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "David Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
On Thu, 2005-06-2
On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Thomas Conley wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Joe Zitzelberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
On Jun 2
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/22/2005
at 07:00 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>And you forgot to terminate or continue in accordance with the rules.
No, *you* forgot that he was using the preprocessor. The data were not
his in the first place. He simply trusted the IBM preproce
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/22/2005
at 07:58 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>If you will pardon the pun, this sound like a perfect example of
>'shooting the messenger' instead of addressing the root cause.
When the messenger hides half of the message, he should be shot.
-
To me, this message is "self-documenting"
IGD101I SMS ALLOCATED TO DDNAME (FVROUT3 )
DSN (VAT.ALL.VA520R )
STORCLAS (TESTSC) MGMTCLAS () DATACLAS (DEFAULT)
VOL SER NOS= TEST07
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 09:16 -0400, Thomas Conley wrote:
> I bet you think that the BPX messages coming out of ISHELL are also
> self-documenting.
Aw, c'mon Tom. There are some excellent decafs -- you should try one.
The COBOL messages *are* (for the most) self-documenting. I can't
offhand think
Hum, there appears to be an apparent need/desire for this documentation,
despite IBM's protestations. What I think would be interesting would be
a Wikipedia like setup. That's where all these messages could be
documented and then users could post their observations and "helpful
hints". Unfortunatel
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:57 AM
Subject: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
Sorry to disagree on this one (again), but the error message tells y
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
What is not self-describing about these is why they suddenly started
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
From: "Bill Klein"
>
> If messages start appearing after a migration of compilers, then SOMEONE
> (application programmer or systems programmer) SHOULD have the sense to
> check in the "Migration Guide".
>
> Furthermore, IMHO, anyone (systems programmer) who does a migration of
> compilers and does
>SNIP<
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Bill Klein
Sent: 23 June 2005 13:45
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
If messages start appearing after a migration of com
--- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Zitzelberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Steve
"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
>SNIP<
>
> I will go for it hey its almost Friday.
>
> If you can't figure out what the message is saying open a PMR with
> the COBOL people tell them for the up teenth time that these
> messages are NOT self describing.
>
> Ed
>> IGYPS0157-E A shift-out was found in column 50 without a
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Zitzelberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
On Jun 22, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
IGYPS0157
On Jun 22, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
I will go for it hey its almost Friday.
If you can't figure out what the message is saying open a PMR
with the COBOL people tell them for the up teenth time that
the
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
I will go for it hey its almost Friday.
If you can't figure out what the message is saying open a PMR with
the COBOL people tell them for the up teenth time that these messages
are NOT self describing.
Ed
IGYPS0157-
On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
I will go for it hey its almost Friday.
If you can't figure out what the message is saying open a PMR with
the COBOL people tell them for the up teenth time that these
messages are NOT self describing.
Ed
IGYPS0157-E A shift-out was found i
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/22/2005
at 01:40 PM, "Pommier, Rex R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Knowing nothing about DBCS or Unicode I have a silly question - is
>Unicode a superset of DBCS?
No; Unicode is a 20-bit code with a 16-bit subset, compatible with ISO
10646, and does not use a SI/S
On Jun 22, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Perryman, Brian wrote:
Hi folks
Our developers are getting IGYPS0157-E and IGYPS0158E messages when
they try and compile a CICS COBOL program on z/OS 1.4 in Enterprise
Cobol of z/OS and OS/390 V3.2.
I can't find these blasted messages documented anywhere
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
And apparently succeeded ;~) Thanks for the info. Rex
-Original Message-
From: Steve Comstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DBCS as the "default" (was: Fw: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 mi
gration quest
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
Pommier, Rex R. wrote:
Knowing nothing about DBCS or Unicode I have a silly question - is Unicode a
superset of DBCS? If so, that would explain how you could need to specify 1
or the other, but 1 is required for the other one. Just an uneducated
idea
Rex
Well I know a little about Unicod
.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]>...
>>
>>
&
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.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:<
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/22/2005
at 04:54 PM, "Perryman, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I can see that most of the messages from a compiler would indeed be
>self-documenting and quite rightly so, particularly since the reader
>is probably the programmer and therefore the one that caused
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/22/2005
at 12:41 PM, "Perryman, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I can't find these blasted messages documented anywhere!!
According to IBM the COBOL messages are self explanatory.
1. Sure I'll respect you in the morning.
2. It's okay, Honey, I've had a vasec
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
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:53 AM
IGYPS0157-E A shift-out was found in column 50 without a matching
shift-in in a nonnumeric or national literal. The literal was processed as
written.
"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
uot;McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perryman, Brian
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:42 AM
&g
I started a project that I never finished (much less updated for the latest
compiler). If you check out my web page at:
http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/IBM/ErrMsg.htm
It has an "annotated" version of the ERRMSG output - with a "link" to the
place in the COBOL documentation that relates to th
In many cases it's not a description of the message that's needed, it's what
caused it and what your subsequent options for fixing it are that's needed.
I can see that most of the messages from a compiler would indeed be
self-documenting and quite rightly so, particularly since the reader is
pr
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex R.
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
>
>
>
her explanation.
-Original Message-
From: John Mattson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
Cobol decided that its internal messages were SO wonderful that
they no
Cobol decided that its internal messages were SO wonderful that
they no longer needed a messages manual. Yes, really. I found this by
opening a PMR with IBM.
You can run the following program (Cobol 3.3) :
//RUNIVP EXEC IGYWCLG,PARM.COBOL=RENT,REGION=0M,
// PARM.L
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
messages when they
try and compile a CICS COBOL program on z/OS 1.4 in Enterprise Cobol of z/OS
and OS/390 V3.2.
>
> I can't find these blasted messages documented anywhere!! Is there some
convoluted format for decoding them?
>
> I suspect it's just a COBOL options member prob
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perryman, Brian
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:42 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
Just to expand
Thanks Dave, I'll probably try that too!
-
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction NetworkServices.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution isprohibited. If you
are not the int
Ta!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Tribble, Robert
Sent: 22 June 2005 12:48
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
look here:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid
Information Technology
(Phone) 616-653-8429
(Fax) 616-653-8497
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Perryman, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration
look here:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21163906
-Original Message-
From: Perryman, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
Hi folks
Our developers
Hi folks
Our developers are getting IGYPS0157-E and IGYPS0158E messages when they try
and compile a CICS COBOL program on z/OS 1.4 in Enterprise Cobol of z/OS and
OS/390 V3.2.
I can't find these blasted messages documented anywhere!! Is there some
convoluted format for decoding them
201 - 289 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
