>>> On 9/4/2009 at 6:01 PM, in message >> > It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone with their > management's full backing filed an APAR and a protest to ISO and ANSI > claiming that the status code 97 in fact makes IBM COBOL > non-compliant. I THINK this travesty came in with the implicit verify > that came with DF/EF. Unfortunately nobody (including myself) clued > to the broken as designed violation of the standard and raise a big > enough stink at the time. Either a compile or LE option to return 00 > instead of 97 would be an adequate fix. I can think of a number of > shops where this would be very useful. > > In terms of lost time and disruption to production, this anomaly has > probably cost IBM shops collectively millions of dollars in the past > 20 - 30 years.
I had not considered filing a PMR (APAR, whatever) about this. I will discuss this with my management. Thanks for the idea! Frank The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
