occurs
in [Cobol]
|
From: Frank Swarbrick on 15 Nov 2007 11:25 >>> On 11/14/2007 at 3:10 PM, in message <473B0FEA.6F0F.0085.0(a)efirstbank.com>, Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbrick(a)efirstbank.com> wrote: > I've wondered this for a long time... Why is there a restriction that an > OCCURS clause cannot occur at level 01 or 77? For instance, why not > > 01 TRANS-MORE-CNT OCCURS 4 > PIC S9(7) COMP-3 VALUE ZERO. > > Or even > > 77 TRANS-MORE-CNT OCCURS 4 > PIC S9(7) COMP-3 VALUE ZERO. > > Rather than something silly like... > > 01. > 05 TRANS-MORE-CNT OCCURS 4 > PIC S9(7) COMP-3 VALUE ZERO. > > It's always bugged me. Thanks for all of the answers. Seems to me that it would be easy to solve the FILE SECTION issue by making a rule that OCCURS is not allowed at level 1 or 77 in the FILE SECTION. As for being synchronized there could be a rule that only the first byte of an 01 record need be synchronized. (Probably didn't state that well enough for a standard, but it hardly matters as it obviously will never make it there...) Ah well. Frank
From: Richard on 15 Nov 2007 20:10 On Nov 15, 11:42 am, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > > FD File-1. > 01 Rec-Table occurs 10 times. > .... In an FD area all 01 records implicitly redefine each other. The occurs means that (theoretically) there are 10 01 level entries, each of which is a redefinition of the other 9. Rec-Table(1) is the same (or should be) data area as Rec-Table(2).
From: William M. Klein on 29 Nov 2007 17:57 Richard, I am not certain that I agree with this. It is true that in a STANDARD CONFORMING implementation (and source code) that all 01-levels are implicit redefines. However, if an implementation creates an extension that allows NON-STANDARD occurs at the 01-level, then I think it is UP TO THE IMPLEMENTER what this means. Certainly, ONE approach would be that each element is a "redefines". However, another would be that there is an "implicit" group 01-level ABOVE the data description with the OCCURS. Telling an implementer how they MUST create an extension is a "non-starter" (from my perspective). -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Richard" <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote in message news:6d41815e-a480-4d78-837e-979730ba94b3(a)d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 15, 11:42 am, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> > wrote: >> >> FD File-1. >> 01 Rec-Table occurs 10 times. >> .... > > > In an FD area all 01 records implicitly redefine each other. The > occurs means that (theoretically) there are 10 01 level entries, each > of which is a redefinition of the other 9. > > Rec-Table(1) is the same (or should be) data area as Rec-Table(2). > >
From: Richard on 30 Nov 2007 15:37 On Nov 30, 11:57 am, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > Richard, > I am not certain that I agree with this. It is true that in a STANDARD > CONFORMING implementation (and source code) that all 01-levels are implicit > redefines. However, if an implementation creates an extension that allows > NON-STANDARD occurs at the 01-level, then I think it is UP TO THE IMPLEMENTER > what this means. Certainly, ONE approach would be that each element is a > "redefines". Do you know of any implementation where this is not the case in an FD ? > However, another would be that there is an "implicit" group > 01-level ABOVE the data description with the OCCURS. That would make it rather hard to do a WRITE when the "00 group level" is implicit and has no name. > Telling an implementer how they MUST create an extension is a "non-starter" > (from my perspective). Of course they could design their own language which is not like Cobol at all.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Wildcat COBOL Next: Generate XML with attributes from a cobol copybook |