In a recent note, Clark Morris said: > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:35:44 -0300 > > The problem has nothing to do with z/OS vs. Unix. It is a simple > IDIOTIC check that can't be disabled. It may make sense for fixed > The thrust of my remark was that since UNIX maintains no metadata similar to LRECL, no such check is possible, and no such delusional error can be IDIOTICally reported. I suppose I can be accused of some inconsistency since I lately hailed UNIX for dutifully maintaining other metadata (file timestamps). But UNIX programs don't often fail because the system insists on validating a timestamp.
> block. The whole issue should be revisited by the COBOL compiler > group. The 2002 COBOL standard might allow a graceful way for the > compiler group to make the appropriate changes. In one sense the > SHARE requirement might be to honor the Language Futures Task Force > report. This would also have some other interesting advantages such > as allowing COBOL programs to read or write either ESDS or QSAM files > without program modification. > Doesn't the standard support portability of COBOL programs to platforms that don't maintain LRECL as metadata? If so, the standard can't require validation of LRECL, since that isn't guaranteed to be available. It should be permissible simply to perform no such check. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
