Why can't the RECORD clause in the new COBOL be bumped up such that it matches LRECL-4?
Or are the LRECLs somewhat different from JCL deck to JCL deck? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Robertson Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: COBOL short variable length files???? On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:02:47 -0700, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Output, but the situation is more general than that. The usual mass of backward compatibility and non-technical/financial constraints. We have a widely used Assembler subroutine that was employed to paginate reports. As part of a long term policy from on high we are working to convert this to HLL which means C or COBOL here. So there are umpty beaucoup different jobs which depend on the assembler routine tolerating this quirk. If the COBOL one doesn't tolerate it we have to fix maybe 2000 JCL decks or do something clever, and the whole point of rewriting in HLL is NOT to do something clever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
