Here are more comments from my ETR with IBM"


I guess the rules did change(names removed), from my ETR: 

David,

OK, found two pmrs claiming behavior changed by the APAR. It's related 


to search/search all comparing the key. In this case we closed a

loophole after enhancing National datatypes and some XML/JAVA related   
stuff.

There are two possibilities for the change in behavior.                 
1)  APAR PQ95214 from June, 2005 changed the

    behavior to be consistent with an alphameric

    compare.  That requires that after the

    matching parts of the key and argument are

    tested, then the rest of the longer field                           
    must be blanks (not ignored as before).                             
2)  A second possibility was that the unused part                       
    of the table was not filled or initialized

    with a high key, either HIGH-VALUES or all 9's.                     
    If the unused keys are not initialized to a                         
    high value, the residual data can throw off                         
    the binary search.

Rgds,                                                                   


xxxxxx,                                                                 


------------------------------------------------------------- 


thanks for the update. Regarding #1, what you are saying seems to be a

change then from



This is found in 6.1.6.5 of manual Enterprise COBOL for z/OS, Language

Reference, Version 3 Release 3, Document Number SC27-1408-02, Program   
Number 5655-G53                                                         


Operands of                                                             
unequal size If the operands are of unequal size, the comparison is made

as though the shorter operand were extended to the right with enough

spaces to make the operands equal in size.



If this is the case, why wouldn't there be a HOLD(ACTION), or at least a

HOLD(DOC) on the PTF? Seems like this is the ENT COBOL 3.3 was designed 
and documented.                                                         


Dave

---------------------------------------------------------- 


David,

You're absolutely right. The reason there is no HOLD card there is

because we accidently fixed the loophole. I will publish this to web

to warn other users and update PSP bucket.

thanks,                                                                 
-------------------------------------------------------- 


Ok, now we are getting somewhere.                                       


If the old behavior is documented in the V3.3 reference manual and was

working as documented pre PQ95214, then you didnt fix a loophole, you   
changed documented functionality. I don't understand how this can be?   

 


________________________________________________________
Dave Jousma
Principal Systems Programmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
616.653.8429

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to