EBCDIC to ASCII OPTCD=Q? (JCL)
in [Cobol]
|
From: Alistair on 22 Sep 2006 11:54 Rick Smith wrote: > "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1158774662.910290.181790(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > [snip] > > I notice you don't have privates in > > the army but that everyone is a "specialist". > > Privates are E-1 through E-3. Specialists are E-4 > through E-7. It is probably true that the number of > Specialists exceeds the number of Privates; but it is > true that every Specialist was once a Private. At one > point, the time-in-service requirement for E-4 was > one year, thus Privates may reach their time-in-service > prior to, or soon after, deployment overseas. > Promotions during training and assignment in the US, > may be why you don't notice Privates but do notice > "that everyone is a 'specialist'". I think you are right. However, the way that I first heard it was that privates were demoralised by not being valued, so the term specialist was dreamed up to make them feel.... special. > > There is Private (E-1 has no chevron and E-2 has a > single chevron) and Private First Class (E-3 has a > single chevron with an arc below the chevron). > > My experience (I served in the US Army more than > thirty years ago and things change) was that a further > distinction was made on the basis Military Occupational > Specialty (MOS). Those enlisted soldiers trained in the > combat arms: Infantry (small arms), Armor (tanks), > Artillery (howitzers, missiles), etc., wore chevrons. > Those trained for support of the combat arms: clerks, > food service, supply, mechanics, technicians, etc., wore > the "eagle device" of a Specialist. > > There are four ranks for Specialists, Specialist Four > through Specialist Seven, corresponding to Corporal, > Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, and Sergeant First Class, > respectively. > > The insignia for a Specialist Four is the eagle device > only. Specialist Five has a single arc above the device. > Specialist Six has two arcs above and Specialist Seven > has three arcs above. > > The insignia for Corporal is two chevrons, for Sergeant > three chevrons, for Staff Sergeant one arc below three > chevrons, and for Sergeant First Class two arcs below > three chevrons.
From: Rick Smith on 22 Sep 2006 13:36 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message news:12h596a27h29hb4(a)corp.supernews.com... > > "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1158774662.910290.181790(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > [snip] > > I notice you don't have privates in > > the army but that everyone is a "specialist". > > Privates are E-1 through E-3. Specialists are E-4 > through E-7. [snip] > My experience (I served in the US Army more than > thirty years ago and things change) [...] I didn't realize how much they changed! According to < http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blstripehistory.htm >, the Specialist ranks began in 1955 with four grades. Specialist ranks were re-designated in 1958 and two were added, eight and nine. Those two were discontinued in 1965. Specialist seven was discontinued in 1978. Specialist five and six were discontinued in 1985. All that remains of Specialist is one grade, equivalent to Corporal. However, those with four-year college degrees entering the US Army start as Specialists and not as Privates.
From: Rick Smith on 22 Sep 2006 15:36 "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1158940474.290347.95400(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Rick Smith wrote: > > "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:1158774662.910290.181790(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > [snip] > > > I notice you don't have privates in > > > the army but that everyone is a "specialist". > > > > Privates are E-1 through E-3. Specialists are E-4 > > through E-7. It is probably true that the number of > > Specialists exceeds the number of Privates; but it is > > true that every Specialist was once a Private. At one > > point, the time-in-service requirement for E-4 was > > one year, thus Privates may reach their time-in-service > > prior to, or soon after, deployment overseas. > > Promotions during training and assignment in the US, > > may be why you don't notice Privates but do notice > > "that everyone is a 'specialist'". > > I think you are right. As I discovered, I was mistaken in some respects; including that the time-in-service requirement for Specialist is now two years with an exception for certain college graduates. > However, the way that I first heard it was that > privates were demoralised by not being valued, so the term specialist > was dreamed up to make them feel.... special. The history of the Specialist rank (posted separately) would seem to refute that; that is, Specialist has always been a rank Privates reach as their 'value' increases. The current exception being those who enter the US Army with a four-year degree and receive the rank of Specialist upon entry. Perhaps a four-year degree has value. <g>
From: Alistair on 27 Sep 2006 16:09 Doc, did you try this jcl with the OPTCD=Q on an IEFBR14 allocate and leaving it off of the actual write DD? It niggles me that I can not recall how we did it but we certainly did not use any of that new-fangled Rexx stuff. docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > All righty... I've been asked about having a job on an IBM mainframe > (z/OS) produce ASCII output. > > (To those who think to inquire 'Why don't you produce EBCDIC output and > then have ftp translate it during transfer to the target?' my response is > 'I have made this suggestion and someone who signs my timesheet responded > 'That will be considered a possibility; right now you should look into > making the ASCII files on the mainframe.''... and yes, all fields are > either text or display numerics w/ sign leading separate.) > > I recall - but my memory is, admittedly, porous - something about the DCB > parameter OPTCD=Q being able to accomplish this but it will require more > jiggery-pokery than I can come up with; when I code an IEBGENER or a > DFSORT with DD statements like: > > //INDD DD DISP=SHR, > // DSN=INPUT.DATASET.INEBCDIC > //OUTDD DD DSN=OUTPUT.DATASET.INASCII, > // DISP=(,CATLG,CATLG), > // UNIT=TAPE,RETPD=0, > // DCB=(*.INDD,BUFNO=30,OPTCD=Q) > > ... I get an ABEND (in the case of DFSORT it is IEC141I 013-70, a problem > with the OPEN macro... but the QW text for Return Code 70 (for V=IBM > P=Z/OS SYSTEM MSGS R=V1R4 I=IEC141I) reads: > > --begin quoted text: > > An OPEN macro instruction was issued for a data set on magnetic tape. A > conflict exists between LABEL parameters on the DD statement, and the > DCBRECFM, DCBOPTCD, DCBBUFOF, and DCBUSASI fields, which give the > appearance of mixed ASCII and EBCDIC attributes for the data set; or TRTCH > was specified for a 9-track tape. > > Some examples of conflicts are that for AL tapes the BLKSIZE must be less > than 2048, RECFM=V,U and VB cannot be used. For details about AL tape > restrictions see z/OS DFSMS: Using Magnetic Tapes . Note that most > utilities (except for IEHINITT) do not support ASCII. > > --end quoted text > > (changing UNIT=TAPE,RETPD=0 to UNIT=SYSDA,SPACE=(TRK,(6000,500),RLSE) does > not change the error but the salient text for 70 then appears to be 'An > OPEN macro instruction was issued for a data set not on magnetic tape. > Either OPTCD=Q was specified, or OPEN was issued for an ISAM data set > using QSAM.') > > It appears obvious that under the conditions of my experiment DFSORT is > falling into the category of 'most utilities'. Might someone be so kind > as to point me towards a resource from which I may be able to glean a > solution? > > Thanks much. > > (Oh... and among a bunch of Other Stuff a Google search for '"EBCDIC ASCII > translation" jcl' (no ', " included) returns > http://www.dbforums.com/archive/index.php/t-327313.html ; this informs, > among other things, that 'answering a question with a question is no > answer at all'... it's on the Web, it's gotta be right, right?) > > DD
From: on 27 Sep 2006 20:54
In article <1159387774.411836.170220(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Doc, did you try this jcl with the OPTCD=Q on an IEFBR14 allocate and >leaving it off of the actual write DD? I can't recall at all, Mr Maclean... foolish pragmatist I can be, I found a solution and then did my best to forget anything that didn't work. > >It niggles me that I can not recall how we did it but we certainly did >not use any of that new-fangled Rexx stuff. I'm not sure how newfangled the TSO OCOPY command is... but if something can be solved with a direct TSO command then I'd say the solution is sufficiently well-grounded for Prod implementation. DD |