Re: COBOL Question

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:56:06 +, Gibney, Dave wrote: >Also, it's often better to nest than to make compound conditions. > Do you mean not expanding the Distributive Law? E.g. you prefer: A and ( B or C ) to: A and B or A and C? Do we need to talk about short-circuit evaluation? >>

Re: COBOL Question

Also, it's often better to nest than to make compound conditions. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 12:54 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL Question > >

Re: COBOL Question

Oppolzer Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 12:23 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL Question I hope you don't mind if I comment once again; my original coding was: IF TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE AND SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R' and as I learned now from your helpful posts

Re: COBOL Question

I hope you don't mind if I comment once again; my original coding was:     IF TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE     AND SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R' and as I learned now from your helpful posts, this is expanded to     IF TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE     AND SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR SMOD

Re: COBOL Question

Seems to me that ~is~ operator precedence: We evaluate AND before OR, just as we evaluate * before +. But that's closely related to the distributive rule, right? P and Q or R R or P and Q ...both evaluate the same way, to "(P and Q) or R". The distributive property says that P

Re: COBOL Question

'*' (multiply) and '+' (add). Without parentheses the higher-precedence operations are combined first. HTH Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:11 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: COBOL Question EXTERNAL

Re: COBOL Question

:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL Question On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:31:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I'm pretty sure that the issue is operator precedence. > >(SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R') means (SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR SMOD (IND1) = 'R') > Ouch! That's not operato

Re: [External] Re: COBOL Question

As our e-mails crossed in the ether, you are absolutely correct in your evaluation below. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 12:59 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [External] Re: COBOL Question

Re: COBOL Question

STSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 10:46 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL Question On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:31:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I'm pretty sure that the issue is operator precedence. > >(SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R') means (SMOD (IND

Re: COBOL Question

Oppolzer Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:11 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: COBOL Question EXTERNAL EMAIL Don't know if this is the right place to ask ... after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have now to work with COBOL again. Took me some time to get

Re: [External] COBOL Question

, 2020 12:11 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [External] COBOL Question Don't know if this is the right place to ask ... after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have now to work with COBOL again. Took me some time to get started, because my COBOL

Re: COBOL Question

...@t-online.de] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: COBOL Question Don't know if this is the right place to ask ... after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have now to work with COBOL again. Took me some time to get started

Re: COBOL Question

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:31:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I'm pretty sure that the issue is operator precedence. > >(SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R') means (SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR SMOD (IND1) = 'R') > Ouch! That's not operator precedence; that's implied Distributive Law. Does COBOL work that way? I

Re: COBOL Question

] on behalf of Bernd Oppolzer [bernd.oppol...@t-online.de] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: COBOL Question Don't know if this is the right place to ask ... after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have now to work with COBOL again

COBOL Question

Don't know if this is the right place to ask ... after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have now to work with COBOL again. Took me some time to get started, because my COBOL knowledge was at a, say, 1970s level :-) Now I am in the 4th month of my assignment,

Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

>And so you can enjoy this, my question is, why is it that OPT(0)=20 >overrides INITCHECK, but if I ask for Optimization (e.g, OPT(1))=20 >it works? >Frankly, I do not want anyone using INITCHECK (IC) outside of=20 >OPT(0) which means NOOPT (except that you can't say that with=20 >COBOL 6.2).

Re: Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

> On May 30, 2018, at 9:43 AM, Steve Thompson wrote: > > > So anyone else see anything a bit silly about this? > > > Regards, > Steve Thompson Steve, IBM is in the business of making money and the more CPU you use the more computers they will sell. Ed

Re: Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

nframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Steve Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:43 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Best Group for COBOL Question(s) > > Folks: > > I've been searching and searching, and I know that at one time there was a > COBOL Lis

Re: Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

Thank you. That does make sense to me. I would have done it in the "passes" for "parse/scan". But what you say makes sense to do in the "prep" for Code Gen. Of course, compiler development has changed tremendously since I was working with it back in the '70s (NOT COBOL and NOT IBM

Re: Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

This list is followed pretty closely by the team so you can ask questions about COBOL here. You can also go to the COBOL Cafe (Discussion forum section) and ask questions there. There is an RFE on this topic and it has been accepted. There is no target date for that RFE. The issue is this:

Re: Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

There's already an RFE out for this: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=114659 Andrew Arentsen Senior Mainframe Systems Engineer From: "Steve Thompson" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 05/30/2018 09:43 AM Subject:Best Group for COBO

Best Group for COBOL Question(s)

Folks: I've been searching and searching, and I know that at one time there was a COBOL List server, but I can't find it now. My question is, what would be the best group to ask a compiler question (specific to COBOL) that Tom (forgot his last name), would probably see? IBM's blogs,

Re: Another COBOL question

. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 11:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Another COBOL question Interesting about the NAME. All the options should apply to all o

Another COBOL question

Interesting about the NAME. All the options should apply to all of the source. Also, a loose PROCESS card like that doesn't seem to be documented (at least in the obvious place). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive

Re: Another COBOL question

ngle compile. Frank From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 10:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Another COBOL question I like Frank's e

Another COBOL question

I like Frank's example, prefer it over the ENTRY. If the ENTRY works, but it's use is not documented, I'd raise it with IBM. Once they acknowledge (or deny) that it works, you are safe against some future change (or you know you have to change it now). I think any site that doesn't allow

Re: Another COBOL question

ty. Creativity is for artsy people. We are engineers! (last statements are a bit tongue-in-cheek - and it's very difficult to talk doing that!) > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of Bill Woodger

Re: Another COBOL question

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Hardee, Chuck wrote: > ​ > > > Has anyone ever written a single COBOL program which contains an ENTRY > statement for an internal language environment error handler? > If so, can you share with me what you did to make it work? >

Re: Another COBOL question

...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 9:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Another COBOL question I've already posted that for a dynamic CALL you are supposed to CANCEL the "main" program before using the ENTRY program. If there is nothing in the ENTRY program which rel

Another COBOL question

I've already posted that for a dynamic CALL you are supposed to CANCEL the "main" program before using the ENTRY program. If there is nothing in the ENTRY program which relies on WORKING-STORAGE or LOCAL-STORAGE in the "main" program, you may ordinarily "get away with it", even though the lack

Re: Another COBOL question

day, August 05, 2016 10:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Another COBOL question Thanks to everyone that responded to my previous question about generating link statements from the compiler. The answer was to use the NAME(ALIAS) PROCESS statement. I now am looking for

Re: Another COBOL question

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Hardee, Chuck wrote: > Thanks to everyone that responded to my previous question about generating > link statements from the compiler. > The answer was to use the NAME(ALIAS) PROCESS statement. > > I now am looking for some further

Another COBOL question

Thanks to everyone that responded to my previous question about generating link statements from the compiler. The answer was to use the NAME(ALIAS) PROCESS statement. I now am looking for some further insight. I have a program that has a main program and an alternate entry point (ENTRY). The

<    1   2