Eighth Edition (March 1993)
| This edition replaces and makes obsolete the previous edition,
| SC26-4047-06. Technical changes for this edition are summarized
| under"Summary of Changes" in topic FRONT_3 and are indicated by a
| vertical bar to the left of the change.
| This edition applies
What was the release date on that?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 1:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)
VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars
Well, various folks have convinced me that I missed this back when I looked for
it! I have a hazy memory of asking someone-not this list-about it and being
told "No" but that might be wishful thinking.
Hmm, it *had* been a while; I looked at the source, found this comment:
*Given two
Dated March 12, 1993
On Sun, 21 May 2023 14:46:10 -0500, Charles Mills wrote:
>VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars on the doc:
>
>x LENGTH OF Special Register
>x The LENGTH OF special register contains the number of bytes used by an
>x identifier.
>
>x LENGTH OF creates an implic
VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars on the doc:
x LENGTH OF Special Register
x The LENGTH OF special register contains the number of bytes used by an
x identifier.
x LENGTH OF creates an implicit special register whose content is equal
x to the current byte length of the data i
On Sun, 21 May 2023 18:56:39 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The Initiator calls it with a 32-bit PLIST, so below the bar and if you invoke
>it with CALL you must be aware that it is a main program and do likewise.
>
>WEe hates it, precious, we hates it.
>
It should have been easy enough for the i
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)
On Sun, 21 May 2023 16:51:18 +
, 2023 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)
On Sun, 21 May 2023 16:51:18 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>That's not a CALL convention. The primary use case for the halfword length is
>programs that can be invoked with EXEC PGM
On Sun, 21 May 2023 16:51:18 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>That's not a CALL convention. The primary use case for the halfword length is
>programs that can be invoked with EXEC PGM=. ...
>I assume that you're talking AMODE24 or AMODE31; for AMODE64 things are
>different.
>
If a program object
Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 12:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)
On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:02:59 +0300, Binyamin Dis
On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:02:59 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
>Curious how you used a subroutine. It only worked for fields in a structure
>where you passed the address of the field and the next field and it subtracted
>the addresses?
>
>Was there a way to make COBOL pass a dope vector with descrip
On Sat, 20 May 2023 19:09:03 -0400 Phil Smith III wrote:
:>Since when does COBOL have LENGTH OF? I looked for this about 12 years ago
and didn't find it, wrote a tiny and trivial assembler function to do the same
thing. Did I miss it, or is it new since then?
:>Not that the code has needed any
there is some logic behind it.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 5:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)
Since when does COBOL have LENGTH OF? I looked for this ab
Since when does COBOL have LENGTH OF? I looked for this about 12 years ago and
didn't find it, wrote a tiny and trivial assembler function to do the same
thing. Did I miss it, or is it new since then?
Not that the code has needed any support, but I'm glad that if it ever becomes
an issue, I
14 matches
Mail list logo
