http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.ed
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
>
Where I read:
o Improved capability to process large data items to the full AMODE(31)
capability.
How impr
On 04/25/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
Where I read:
o Improved capability to process large data ite
Except we running machines in 64 mode:)
Ed
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/
rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
Where I
W dniu 2013-04-25 18:35, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
Where I read:
o Improved capability to process large data it
I had hoped that the Enterprise COBOL support for DFP that is
apparently in the womb of time would make it into this release, but no
. . .
Still, COBOL is now a much better language than an examination of most
of the source programs written it it would suggest.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - U
d want
an explicit field to be DFP instead of PD. Perhaps someone can give a good
example of such?
>
> From: John Gilmore
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:43 PM
>Subject: Re: IBM Enterprise COBOL V5 announced
&
On 4/25/2013 3:43 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
I had hoped that the Enterprise COBOL support for DFP that is
apparently in the womb of time would make it into this release, but no
. . .
Still, COBOL is now a much better language than an examination of most
of the source programs written it it would s
It is certainly because they have not been adequately trained to use
what Enterprise COBOL has to offer; but the situation is worse: many
shops actively discourage the use of its newer facilities.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
--
On 4/25/2013 4:11 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
It is certainly because they have not been adequately trained to use
what Enterprise COBOL has to offer; but the situation is worse: many
shops actively discourage the use of its newer facilities.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
You're right the
I have customers who don't understand LE options ...for Cobol had on still
on 1.7 z/os
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
> On 4/25/2013 4:11 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> It is certainly
On 4/25/2013 5:59 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
It's still not clear to me the situations when a business programmer
would want an explicit field to be DFP instead of PD. Perhaps
someone can give a good example of such?
Aside from tracking the national debt ?
Many financial institutions are usi
On 25 April 2013 17:59, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> It's still not clear to me the situations when a business programmer would
> want an explicit field to be DFP instead of PD. Perhaps someone can give a
> good example of such?
If you must deal with very large and very small numbers in the same
I am glad that Tony Harminc responded to Frank Swarbrick's question,
and his Cowlishaw reference is an excellent one.
There is another, summary answer to Frank's question. All arithmetic
that is currently done in packed decimal can better and should be done
instead in DFP.
John Gilmore, Ashland,
On 4/26/2013 3:10 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
I am glad that Tony Harminc responded to Frank Swarbrick's question,
and his Cowlishaw reference is an excellent one.
There is another, summary answer to Frank's question. All arithmetic
that is currently done in packed decimal can better and should be
Who's writing the compilers?
In a message dated 4/26/2013 4:33:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
st...@trainersfriend.com writes:
Hmmm. Who's imperious here? Who's practical?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive a
I do not expect significant use of DFP in existing COBOL systems. The
COBOL community is a highly conservative one that comes to terms with
new technology only very slowly or not at all, witness the recent
discussion here of the wide continuing use of AMODE(24).
I did think it useful to turn Fran
On 25 Apr 2013 15:00:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On 4/25/2013 3:43 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> I had hoped that the Enterprise COBOL support for DFP that is
>> apparently in the womb of time would make it into this release, but no
>> . . .
>>
>> Still, COBOL is now a much better
18 matches
Mail list logo
