Michael G Phillips wrote:
>> Thanks. I'll point him to it. He has already, somewhat jokingly, said "fix
>> it!" But COBOL doesn't have the DWIW (Do What I Want) verb.
> I'm still waiting for the DWIT (Do What I'm Thinking) and RAE (Remove All
> Errors) instructions... ;-)
Add this action: WF
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Michael G Phillips
> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:32 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
&
> Thanks. I'll point him to it. He has already, somewhat jokingly, said "fix
> it!" But COBOL doesn't have the DWIW (Do What I Want) verb.
I'm still waiting for the DWIT (Do What I'm Thinking) and
RAE (Remove All Errors) instructions... ;-)
---
John McKown wrote:
>OP here. I guess I shouldn' t post while "ticked off" at someone. Apologies.
Not me, I would just be 'p*ssed off!' ;-)
>The real "problem" is that I simply was not able to explain to the programmer
>__in terms that made sense to a COBOL programmer__ what was happening. His
t; >> Thomas Berg Specialist zOS\RQM\IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ)
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-
> >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On
> >> > Behalf Of John McKown
> >> > Sent: W
al Message-
>> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>> > Behalf Of John McKown
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:02 PM
>> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> > Subject: COBOL "problem" (not really), but
On 09/12/2013 01:33 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
> John McKown writes:
>> But COBOL doesn't have the DWIW (Do What I Want) verb.
>
> We're working on it. :-)
>
> Just be patient and keep smiling, John. You'll get there. Perhaps (as
> another idea) there's already a bit of working, tested, efficient
John McKown writes:
>But COBOL doesn't have the DWIW (Do What I Want) verb.
We're working on it. :-)
Just be patient and keep smiling, John. You'll get there. Perhaps (as
another idea) there's already a bit of working, tested, efficient code in
house that implements substantially the same functio
BM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
> I have now studied the program source. Let&#x
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
I have now studied the program source. Let's just drop this discussion
because the program is junk.
FD XDF-FILE.
01 XDF-RECORD
02 XDF-REC-LNG S9
raid it doesn't look like this is
> "reality".
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: John McKown
> >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:23 PM
> >Subject: Re: COBOL "problem&qu
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
I can try that. The programmer says that he intents to define the passed in
area in the calling program at the front of his WORKING-STORAGE so that the
area is larger. I.e. it is _planning_ on a
il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:21 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
> I can try that. The programmer says that he intents to define the passed
> in area in the calling program at the front of his WORKING
s of XDF-RECORD. But in LINK-RECORD they are concatenated.
So I'm afraid it doesn't look like this is "reality".
Frank
>
> From: John McKown
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:23 PM
>Subj
hn McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
> I have now studied the program source. Let's just drop this discussion
> because the program is junk.
>
> FD
I agree.
>
> From: "Farley, Peter x23353"
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
>
>That will work, but I can't
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:11 PM
>Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
>
>If I am not misremembering, Mr. Robert Heinlein's character Lazurus Long said:
> "Ignorance is curable, only stupidity is fat
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of John McKown
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:16 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
> >
>
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Thomas Berg
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
I thought the length field was in LINKAGE SECTION given by the caller ?
Best Regards
Thomas Berg
>
t: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this 100% correctly, but take a look at this:
identification division.
program-id. vlen.
environment division.
nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:16 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
> Well explained. I will keep this to show him when t
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but
2013 2:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
What you said was basically what I told the programmer to do. What he
really wants is for the READ INTO to do is to read in the record
"somewhere" (i.e. the I/O buffer). The ODO
How about not making this about padding. My guess would be that cobol clears
the storage before the read instead of padding storage after the read. I would
telling the programmer:
Before a READ INTO, the storage is cleared with nulls. The size of the area to
be cleared is set by his program in
What you said was basically what I told the programmer to do. What he
really wants is for the READ INTO to do is to read in the record
"somewhere" (i.e. the I/O buffer). The ODO value is within the record
itself. So he was wanting COBOL to effectively do a MOVE of the ODO
variable, then do the
On 09/11/2013 12:02 PM, John McKown wrote:
> A programmer came by today with a problem. He is sometimes getting a S0C4-4
> abend in a COBOL program. This is a subroutine. One of the parameters
> passed in is a data area, which can be of various lengths. It is defined
> with an OCCURS DEPENDING ON w
September 11, 2013 11:02 AM
>Subject: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
>
>
>A programmer came by today with a problem. He is sometimes getting a S0C4-4
>abend in a COBOL program. This is a subroutine. One of the parameters
>passed in is a data area, which
alist zOS\RQM\IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ)
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:02 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: COBOL "pro
A programmer came by today with a problem. He is sometimes getting a S0C4-4
abend in a COBOL program. This is a subroutine. One of the parameters
passed in is a data area, which can be of various lengths. It is defined
with an OCCURS DEPENDING ON with a data element within the area. I.e. the
first
TSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
A programmer came by today with a problem. He is sometimes getting a S0C4-4
abend in a COBOL program. This is a subroutine. One of the parameters
passed in is a data area, which can be of various lengths. It is defined
with an O
ge-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of John McKown
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:02 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: COBOL "problem" (not really), but sort of.
> >
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
