In a recent note, Charles Mills said: > Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:50:24 -0800 > > WHY would the COBOL compiler behave this way? Perhaps to assure consistent > results whether loaded as a jobstep program or from a calling program. (I > disagree with the design decision.) > I concur with your disagreement. Silent truncation of operands is almost always bad design, particularly when the document says "must" in describing the limitation. (But is the truncation silent, or does the compiler issue an error message?)
And there's no concern of consistency -- there's no need to make the behavior of the compiler when called from a program passing PARM>100 characters consistent with its behavior when loaded as a jobstep program with PARM>100 characters, because the latter can never occur. -- 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
