Information about direct cobol abort codes
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 18 Dec 2006 10:27 In article <ug9do2h1338h81p2l8a0p09tsm7rvd72nq(a)4ax.com>, Ron <ron(a)address.below> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>In article <X%Zgh.104$2Y2.99(a)newsfe03.lga>, >>Kevin M <kmills44(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:ellumm$fq$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>>> Please do your own homework. >>> >>>In other words, DD has no frigging clue! >> >>I think I have enough of a clue as to what constitutes homework, aye. > > I think so, too. However, I also think you tend to be >a bit fast on the trigger. That might be... and when I see that I've made an error I do my best to admit it and apologise for it, as well. >This question was esoteric >enough that experienced COBOL programmers could have a >tough time with the answer. Besides not being a part of >the COBOL standard, it's completely operating system and >compiler version dependent. The original poster's statement of 'this should not be done with SOC7 or return codes' indicates, to me, an IBM mainframe operating system of some sort... and the lack of any sort of indication as to a reason for avoiding the two most basic mechanisms points towards - in my experience - an academic exercise. The original poster's utter silence on the matter can be seen as falling into the 'assignment due-date has passed' category... for those who, upon hearing hoofbeats, might first conclude 'horses' instead of 'zebras', with all the associated pitfalls of such activity, that is. (The usual 'my boss says these are forbidden' wouldn't hold much water, either, as that would indicate a Shop Standard... in which case this situation would, most likely, have been addressed by other programs.) DD
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Dec 2006 11:15 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >The original poster's statement of 'this should not be done with SOC7 or >return codes' indicates, to me, an IBM mainframe operating system of some >sort... and the lack of any sort of indication as to a reason for avoiding >the two most basic mechanisms points towards - in my experience - an >academic exercise. The original poster's utter silence on the matter >can be seen as falling into the 'assignment due-date has passed' >category... for those who, upon hearing hoofbeats, might first conclude >'horses' instead of 'zebras', with all the associated pitfalls of such >activity, that is. > >(The usual 'my boss says these are forbidden' wouldn't hold much water, >either, as that would indicate a Shop Standard... in which case this >situation would, most likely, have been addressed by other programs.) I've been told similar things by bosses. This seems to be a very unlikely student question to me, not really being about CoBOL, but being about shop standards. I, also could be wrong, but it fits my experience.
From: Anonymous on 18 Dec 2006 11:37 In article <8ffdo2pigvorphfhk06s4oogat2ij19e2t(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >>(The usual 'my boss says these are forbidden' wouldn't hold much water, >>either, as that would indicate a Shop Standard... in which case this >>situation would, most likely, have been addressed by other programs.) > >I've been told similar things by bosses. This seems to be a very >unlikely student question to me, not really being about CoBOL, but >being about shop standards. > >I, also could be wrong, but it fits my experience. I have run into a few of these Shop Standards before... and my experience has been that I've been given an assignment, coded it, turned it over for review and then had the listing tossed back on my desk with a sniffed 'You're using a SEARCH/internal sort/(other Standards-permissible technique); those aren't allowed here and you have to use a PERFORM/external sort (other technique)'; I then apologise for my ignorance and ask 'Is there a program that's done something like this that I can use as a template?'... and there has always been such. So... if it were a matter of Shop Standards then I'd assume - based on my own limited exposure to various places and with all the inherent Risks of Assumption - that there'd be at least one other program in the system where the technique that was needed was used; it would be a rather unusual thing to encounter 'Nobody has had to try anything like that previously but what you are doing is forbidden.' (that 'unusual thing' might have been more common in shops that I've *heard* of, but never worked in... I recall a fellow, decades on back, telling me that on an airline reservation system he worked on (in IBM Assembley Language) they were allowed to use only register-based instructions (most often RR or RX types)... so that at one point *someone* must have written routines that would use these faster instructions to do the same stuff as the more-frequently-used SS instructions... but not only was that an Assembley shop but it was back in the Oldene Dayse, when a bare-metal coder could code code, lo, such as *ten* bare-metal coders could not bear to code, todady) DD
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Dec 2006 11:46 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:37:22 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >I have run into a few of these Shop Standards before... and my >experience has been that I've been given an assignment, coded it, turned >it over for review and then had the listing tossed back on my desk with >a sniffed 'You're using a SEARCH/internal sort/(other >Standards-permissible technique); those aren't allowed here and you have >to use a PERFORM/external sort (other technique)'; I then apologise for >my ignorance and ask 'Is there a program that's done something like this >that I can use as a template?'... and there has always been such. The alternative is rare - where a shop standard has existed for some time and then we are told that it is no longer The Right Way. (Mainly because they found an important program that had a confusing abort when the standard didn't work as expected). Attempting to Updating standards is normally a futile exercise - unless some big boss was inconvenienced by the old one (the Important job failed).
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Dec 2006 13:47
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:27:56 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: >PERFORM IF RECORD MEMBER OF AUE-TO-MRECS SET > [do something] >ELSE > [do something else] >END-PERFORM With my pre-compiler I can do the following: IF H-EXT = SPACE MOVE AA-BS-BILL-PRINT TO AA-BN-BILL-PRINT ELSE OBTAIN IABRCNS WITHIN IABRCAA-IABRCNS USING H-EXT ON DB-REC-NOT-FOUND CONTINUE END-IF. Which translates to: IF H-EXT = SPACE MOVE AA-BS-BILL-PRINT TO AA-BN-BILL-PRINT ELSE * OBTAIN IABRCNS WITHIN IABRCAA-IABRCNS * USING H-EXT * ON DB-REC-NOT-FOUND MOVE 13 TO DML-SEQUENCE CALL 'IDMS' USING SUBSCHEMA-CTRL IDBMSCOM (33) SR1813 IABRCAA-IABRCNS H-EXT IDBMSCOM (43) IF NOT DB-REC-NOT-FOUND PERFORM IDMS-STATUS; ELSE CONTINUE END-IF. |