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?
>>
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
>
>
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
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
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
'*' (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
: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
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
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
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
, 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
...@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
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
] 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
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,
>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).
> 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
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
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
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:
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
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,
.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
>
...@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
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
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
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
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
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo