Prev: Cobol history question -- lawsuit against standards committee
Next: Dumb "figurative constant" rules
From: Walter Murray on 24 May 2005 23:37
"HeyBub" wrote:
> Walter Murray wrote:
> > What happens in COBOL if you reference the INTEGER-OF-DATE function
> > and
> > specify an invalid date for the argument?
> >

> You should test it in your world.

In my world (HP COBOL II/iX), you get a run-time abort, unless you specify
an ON SIZE ERROR phrase.

Walter



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Chuck Stevens on 25 May 2005 11:42

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1197krtk63752dd(a)news.supernews.com...

> Our compiler (Fujitsu) goes nuts when an invalid field is passed to
FUNCTION
> NUMVAL. For those instances where we can't guarantee the integrity of the
> field, we're oblidged to test each character before we hand the field to
> NUMVAL.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons the current standard includes the
functions TEST-NUMVAL and TEST-NUMVAL-C! ;-)

-Chuck Stevens


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Cobol history question -- lawsuit against standards committee
Next: Dumb "figurative constant" rules