RM COBOL with ISAM files
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Anyone feeling poetic?
Next: and possibly offensive to sensitive souls - don't read this if you are offended by language. WAS: Re: Anyone feeling poetic?
From: manolobh on 7 Jul 2010 11:40 El 05/07/2010 12:07, Pete Dashwood escribi�: > I am led to believe that RM ISAM files are the same format and compatible > with, Fujitsu ISAM. > > I don't have any to try out but I'd like to know if anybody is in a position > to confirm or deny this? > > Also, if anybody is using RM COBOL can you tell me what your overall > impression of it is, and what COBOL standard was last implemented by it? > > Pete. Perd�n por no escribir en ingles, pero se me hace muy cuesta arriba. Los ficheros indexados del Rm-cobol , a nivel de fichero, son 100% compatibles con Fujitsu Cobol. Yo los tengo funcionando y los trato desde "rm" y "fc" a la vez. Lo �nico que hay que hacer desde Fujitsu Cobol es una llamada para convertir los num�ricos con signo. Ej. CALL "#DEC88TOFJ" USING <nombre campo>. Espero que os sirva la respuesta. Un saludo desde Espa�a. -Manolo-
From: Richard on 7 Jul 2010 14:48 On Jul 8, 3:40 am, manolobh <manol...(a)yahoo.com.ar> wrote: > El 05/07/2010 12:07, Pete Dashwood escribió:> I am led to believe that RM ISAM files are the same format and compatible > > with, Fujitsu ISAM. > > > I don't have any to try out but I'd like to know if anybody is in a position > > to confirm or deny this? > > > Also, if anybody is using RM COBOL can you tell me what your overall > > impression of it is, and what COBOL standard was last implemented by it? > > > Pete. > > Perdón por no escribir en ingles, pero se me hace muy cuesta arriba. > Los ficheros indexados del Rm-cobol , a nivel de fichero, son 100% > compatibles con Fujitsu Cobol. Yo los tengo funcionando y los trato > desde "rm" y "fc" a la vez. > Lo único que hay que hacer desde Fujitsu Cobol es una llamada para > convertir los numéricos con signo. > Ej. CALL "#DEC88TOFJ" USING <nombre campo>. > Espero que os sirva la respuesta. > Un saludo desde España. > -Manolo- From Babel Fish: Pardon not to write in English, but is made me very uphill. The indexed files of the Rm-cobol, concerning file, are compatible 100% with Fujitsu Cobol. Have I them working and them treatment from "rm" and "fc" simultaneously. The unique thing that there is to do from Fujitsu Cobol is a call to turn [convert] the numerical ones with sign. Ex CALL " #DEC88TOFJ" USING <name field>. I hope that it serves the answer to you. A greeting from Spain. -Manolo-
From: manolobh on 7 Jul 2010 18:40 El 07/07/2010 20:48, Richard escribi�: > On Jul 8, 3:40 am, manolobh<manol...(a)yahoo.com.ar> wrote: >> El 05/07/2010 12:07, Pete Dashwood escribi�:> I am led to believe that RM ISAM files are the same format and compatible >>> with, Fujitsu ISAM. >> >>> I don't have any to try out but I'd like to know if anybody is in a position >>> to confirm or deny this? >> >>> Also, if anybody is using RM COBOL can you tell me what your overall >>> impression of it is, and what COBOL standard was last implemented by it? >> >>> Pete. >> >> Perd�n por no escribir en ingles, pero se me hace muy cuesta arriba. >> Los ficheros indexados del Rm-cobol , a nivel de fichero, son 100% >> compatibles con Fujitsu Cobol. Yo los tengo funcionando y los trato >> desde "rm" y "fc" a la vez. >> Lo �nico que hay que hacer desde Fujitsu Cobol es una llamada para >> convertir los num�ricos con signo. >> Ej. CALL "#DEC88TOFJ" USING<nombre campo>. >> Espero que os sirva la respuesta. >> Un saludo desde Espa�a. >> -Manolo- > > From Babel Fish: > > Pardon not to write in English, but is made me very uphill. The > indexed files of the Rm-cobol, concerning file, are compatible 100% > with Fujitsu Cobol. Have I them working and them treatment from "rm" > and "fc" simultaneously. The unique thing that there is to do from > Fujitsu Cobol is a call to turn [convert] the numerical ones with > sign. Ex CALL " #DEC88TOFJ" USING<name field>. I hope that it serves > the answer to you. > A greeting from Spain. > -Manolo- > Thanks for your translation. -Manolo-
From: Anonymous on 8 Jul 2010 09:05 In article <19e1d067-5b24-4bb8-a41c-bbc32a24a749(a)m37g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Jul 8, 3:40?am, manolobh <manol...(a)yahoo.com.ar> wrote: >> El 05/07/2010 12:07, Pete Dashwood escribi?:> I am led to believe that >RM ISAM files are the same format and compatible >> > with, Fujitsu ISAM. >> >> > I don't have any to try out but I'd like to know if anybody is in a position >> > to confirm or deny this? >> >> > Also, if anybody is using RM COBOL can you tell me what your overall >> > impression of it is, and what COBOL standard was last implemented by it? >> >> > Pete. >> >> Perd?n por no escribir en ingles, pero se me hace muy cuesta arriba. >> Los ficheros indexados del Rm-cobol , a nivel de fichero, son 100% >> compatibles con Fujitsu Cobol. Yo los tengo funcionando y los trato >> desde "rm" y "fc" a la vez. >> Lo ?nico que hay que hacer desde Fujitsu Cobol es una llamada para >> convertir los num?ricos con signo. >> Ej. ? ? ?CALL "#DEC88TOFJ" USING <nombre campo>. >> Espero que os sirva la respuesta. >> Un saludo desde Espa?a. >> -Manolo- > >From Babel Fish: > >Pardon not to write in English, but is made me very uphill. The >indexed files of the Rm-cobol, concerning file, are compatible 100% >with Fujitsu Cobol. Have I them working and them treatment from "rm" >and "fc" simultaneously. The unique thing that there is to do from >Fujitsu Cobol is a call to turn [convert] the numerical ones with >sign. Ex CALL " #DEC88TOFJ" USING <name field>. I hope that it serves >the answer to you. >A greeting from Spain. >-Manolo- > From http://translate.google.com: --begin quoted text: Sorry for not writing in English, but I was deeply pained. The files indexed from Rm-cobol, file-level, 100% compatible with Fujitsu Cobol. I have them running and the treatment from "rm" and "k" at a time. All you have to do from Fujitsu Cobol is a call for convert numeric sign. CALL eg "# DEC88TOFJ" USING <field name>. I hope to serve you the answer. Greetings from Spain. --end quoted text From http://www.freetranslation.com: --begin quoted text: Pardon by write not in English, but is done me very uphill. The card indexes index-linked of the Rm-cobol, to level of card index, they are 100% compatible with Fujitsu Cobol. I have them functioning and the deal since "rm" and "fc" at the same time. The unique thing that one must do from Fujitsu Cobol is a call to convert the numerical with sign. Ej. CALL #DEC88TOFJ" USING <nombre campo>. I expect that the answer serve you. A greeting from Spain. --end quoted text Brings me back to my Kollidj Daze, aye. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 9 Jul 2010 11:48
manolobh wrote: > El 05/07/2010 12:07, Pete Dashwood escribi�: >> I am led to believe that RM ISAM files are the same format and >> compatible with, Fujitsu ISAM. >> >> I don't have any to try out but I'd like to know if anybody is in a >> position to confirm or deny this? >> >> Also, if anybody is using RM COBOL can you tell me what your overall >> impression of it is, and what COBOL standard was last implemented by >> it? Pete. > Perd�n por no escribir en ingles, pero se me hace muy cuesta arriba. No es problemo. Yo vivi en Madrid durante dos anos... > Los ficheros indexados del Rm-cobol , a nivel de fichero, son 100% > compatibles con Fujitsu Cobol. Yo los tengo funcionando y los trato > desde "rm" y "fc" a la vez. > Lo �nico que hay que hacer desde Fujitsu Cobol es una llamada para > convertir los num�ricos con signo. > Ej. CALL "#DEC88TOFJ" USING <nombre campo>. Comprendo. Pero donde puedo encontrar esta rutina? Cual es la diferencia en el signo? Por que es el signo un problemo? > Espero que os sirva la respuesta. Ha me ayudo, si. Muchas gracias, Manolo. > Un saludo desde Espa�a. .... y tambien de Nueva Zelanda :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |