Quicksort recursiv
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Jan 2008 09:52 On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:35:44 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >Huh??? > Compiler options have nothing to do with this. For IBM mainframes, the code >from the programming guide will work the same (and use the "system sort program" >to sort tables) regardless of compiler option. OK, then I have no idea how to select a particular sort with the SORT command for my CoBOL without using compiler options.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Jan 2008 09:53 On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:45:52 -0600, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>I have programmed the Quicksort in CoBOL to sort some large tables. >>It's fast, easy, and clear. That said, there should be no need for >>it - I should be able to CoBOL to sort it, and CoBOL should be able to >>tell the system to pick the best sort. >> >>But my shop's CoBOL can't do that. > >Doesn't your shop's CoBOL support object oriented? No. But table sorts don't need OO, they just need to be implemented in my compiler.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Jan 2008 09:54 On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:05:22 -0700, "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick(a)efirstbank.com> wrote: >What happens if you put a PROCESS or CBL card at the top of your source >file? Will production implementation reject it because you are trying to >use a non-standard compile option? They get ignored in Endevor's migration process. (I've tried it)
From: William M. Klein on 14 Jan 2008 11:18 If you actually WANT to tell DFSort or SyntcSort to use a specific type of SORT, then you need to also have one of their special DD cards in your JCL. I could look up some references if you actually want them, but I don't think that (usually) when doing a table sort (on IBM mainframes) the way the same I gave suggested, that this would usually be needed. Let me know if you do want me to look it up. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:untmo35qb5hma5gea14q4hl1vlsbsuj7m6(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:35:44 GMT, "William M. Klein" > <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > >>Huh??? >> Compiler options have nothing to do with this. For IBM mainframes, the code >>from the programming guide will work the same (and use the "system sort >>program" >>to sort tables) regardless of compiler option. > > OK, then I have no idea how to select a particular sort with the SORT > command for my CoBOL without using compiler options.
From: Frank Swarbrick on 14 Jan 2008 18:31
>>> On 1/14/2008 at 7:54 AM, in message <9rtmo3lkbfsilidnpb3lklnol7ukh7227c(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee<howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:05:22 -0700, "Frank Swarbrick" > <Frank.Swarbrick(a)efirstbank.com> wrote: > >>What happens if you put a PROCESS or CBL card at the top of your source >>file? Will production implementation reject it because you are trying to >>use a non-standard compile option? > > They get ignored in Endevor's migration process. (I've tried it) Sounds like the work of source code Nazis! :-) Frank |