McKown, John wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Controlling COBOL DDs named SYSOUT
Personally, I would think that addressing the root issue
would be a lot
more effective in the long run. Why not just ask the
offending program's
support person to fix the bug?
What I sort of wish IBM would do is make an alternate LE library where
the DISPLAY ... UPON SYSOUT is basically an NOOP. Or maybe even an LE
run-time parameter like
PARM='PROGRAMMER_IS_IDIOT_DISABLE_DISPLAY_VERB=YES' with a short form of
PARM='DISPLAY=OFF'
Huh? What have you got against judicious use of DISPLAY
so that you want to call the programmer an idiot?
The OP said there were debugging / development time
DISPLAY statements left behind in code that should
have been removed before moving to production. Hal's
suggestion has solid merit (or is that Merritt) behind
it.
DISPLAY is useful even in production, for certain
error detection / correction routines. And it's the
simplest way to generate HTML in a COBOL CGI. Of
course, you could require only calls to CEEMOUT or
CEEMSG for this kind of work, to enforce a no-DISPLAY
-in-production philosophy, but I don't think that's
an improvement.
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com
z/OS Application development made easier
* Our classes include
+ How things work
+ Programming examples with realistic applications
+ Starter / skeleton code
+ Complete working programs
+ Useful utilities and subroutines
+ Tips and techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
