COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: Anonymous on 22 Sep 2007 09:08 In article <gh29f3pge2r8ndkp9plkbtjdc1qib8avfq(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >The question comes up often on technical tests. Ask any contractor. I'm a contractor/consultant/hired gun... and I do not recall being asked about the differences between indices and subscripts in the past fifteen years. It may be that my memory is a bit porous... or it may be that you are living in a Land where tech tests two decades old are as yesterday's... or it may be something else, entire. DD
From: Anonymous on 22 Sep 2007 09:24 In article <2uq8f3dvu04colv53dbbn3ni99rv5p7mn0(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >Dinosaurs aren't gone, they became birds. (dead person) isn't gone...s/he became a corpse and then putrescent flesh and then a skeleton and 'dust'. DD
From: Robert on 22 Sep 2007 10:45 On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:23:22 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >Have you tried it with "1". I don't think that either IBM or MF will compile >that clean (but I could be mistaken). I've used OCCURS 1 on IBM and MF. It works. On second thought, only b, the second dimension, needs OCCURS 1. The third dimension, c, can be anything.
From: Robert on 22 Sep 2007 11:07 On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:42:22 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: >Frank Swarbrick wrote: >>>>> On 9/20/2007 at 8:31 PM, in message >> <YaidncS6RurpsG7bnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, LX-i<lxi0007(a)netscape.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> PICTURE was introduced in 68, if memory serves - is it obsolete too? >>> Just because something is old doesn't make it obsolete; sometimes its >>> age is a testament to its usefulness. :) >> >> It's somewhat obsolete. Modern Cobol compilers have things such as USAGE >> BINARY-SHORT and BINARY-LONG instead of PICTURE S9(4) COMP and PICTURE S9(9) >> COMP. >> >> Just pointing it out... > >Yeah - I thought of that a few posts back. :) I was going to use >PERFORM, but then I remembered that Robert had actually advocated >getting rid of PERFORM in favor of CALL (at least I think that was him)... Yes. Replace paragraphs with callable programs/functions. The ENTER statement is ugly, but it DOES allow you to mechanically convert an existing program without adding much bloat. In large systems, use function prototypes so users can see what to pass without having to find and read your source code. It beats describing the interface in a Word document, which is what big companies do.
From: Robert on 22 Sep 2007 11:33
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:20:19 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >Robert wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:09:16 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>> news:i3j6f3pa7ucignv34t4oklno0ht8jh2c5p(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:21:35 GMT, "William M. Klein" >>>> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>> <snip> >>>> I and Richard posted facts showing speed is the same. We have not seen facts >>>> from >>>> mainframe-land,except a five year old study. Just post some facts and skip the >>>> ad homina. >>> I do NOT have personal access to an Enterprise V3.4 COBOL compiler - and I do >>> believe what IBM says about its performance (and don't believe that you know how >>> they implement all their syntax -> machine code). HOWEVER, >>> >>> If you create a source program that you think tests subscripts vs indexes >>> (whether it is comprehensive or not), then I think some CLC person might compile >>> and run it for you. >>> >>> Therefore, please create and post a sample program that cleanly compiles with >>> the Micro Focus directives: >>> NOMF DIALECT(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) >>> >>> If you are not using a current-enough version of Server Express to include >>> support for the DIALECT directive, then use: >>> NOMF ENTCOBOL FLAG(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) ARITHMETIC(ENTCOBOL) >>> PERFORM-TYPE(ENTCOBOL) >> >> That's not necessary. The code I posted is Standard-compliant except for comp-5, which we >> all know IBM can handle. > >No, it wasn't. Such things as mixed sectioned, non-sectioned code; exit >section statements not in separate paragraphs; linkage section declared >without a using clause in the procedure division. I could go on. Those things were in the first test, named speed1. The subscript v. index test, named speed2, does not have them. The current '02 Standard does not prohibit any of the things you mentioned. Especially, it does not require exit section to be in a separate paragraph, nor under a paragraph name. >>> If you post such a program and no one else in CLC compiles and runs it (and >>> posts the results) I will find someone who can and will. >> >> Any volunteers? |