On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:20:03 -0600, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Jun 2008 12:55:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed >Philbrook) wrote: > >> Comparing a subscript that had just changed to its maximum value >>before using it in any >>other operation would prevent the majority of abends and storage >>violations at my current facility. >>Of course, in the event that the maximum is exceeded, an orderly >>termination with the proper notifications >>must be coded for. > >What's funny is that shops have old, old, old standards that compile >CoBOL without SSRANGE (for efficiency). Many of those shops fell in >love with PL/I because boundary checking was automatic. It was just >as expensive though. > >As time goes by, the costs of not having SSRANGE, get bigger and >bigger (relative to the cost of implementing it), but the person who >set the standard has been replaced a dozen times, and the standard >lives on. > Ok. I am going to see how to take your suggestion into account. And about data manipulation, I thought to the following checks: - a data is moved into another that has a shorter size (it will be truncated or it could override other data) - a PIC X is moved into a PIC 9 without test IF NUMERIC - a data is redefined and one of its numeric field is redefined in several fields - size of FD is not equal to size defined in JCL (LRECL) - a file is read but it has not been opened - some numeric conversions could lead to lost of accuracy, no ? Same with arithmetic statements, I suppose. What are you thinking about this? Other ideas? Regards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
