Actually, I don't think the Standard has "much opinion" on the entire BLOCK CONTAINS clause. The fact is that MOST existing "conforming" COBOL compilers run in environments where blocking doesn't exist any more. For most conforming compilers, this phrase is documented as "syntax checked but has no effect on application behavior" - or something similar.
I suspect that if one asked (via an "official interpretation request") what happens when the BLOCK CONTAINS clause is omitted - and you are in an environment where blocking MAY exist, then the answer would be "whatever the hardware and/or OS says will happen, happens". However, this is only my opinion of the current status. I strongly doubt that the would find the IBM behavior "non-conforming". However, if anyone actually wants to find out, please contact me "off-list" and I can tell you how to submit an interpretation request. Of possible interest is the fact that the '85 COBOL Standard is no longer an official ANSI or ISO Standard. The current version is the 2002 ISO (or ANSI) Standard - and IBM does NOT even claim to conform to that. Alternatively, you might want to ask about this (as it relates to the Standard) via the "Standards Forum" section of the "IBM COBOL Cafe". See: http://www-949.ibm.com/software/rational/cafe/community/cobol/standard?view= discussions "Paul Gilmartin" <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote in message news:<listserv%200905190056357954.0...@bama.ua.edu>... > On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:56:05 -0500, Bill Klein wrote: > >> > >The actual phrasing of the current Standard is, > > > >"1) This clause is required except when one or more of the following > >conditions exist: > > ... > > c) The number of records or characters contained in a block is > >specified in the operating environment" > > > >I think that leaving it out to get unblocked MAY be considered an extension. > > > I think a reasonable person can conclude that for z/OS, "specified > in the operating environment" means either as BLKSIZE on the JCL DD > statement or available from SDB, and it is the intent of the Standard > that when the BLOCK CONTAINS clause is omitted, that externally > specified (by DD or SDB) value should prevail. And thus that z/OS > COBOL deviates from the Standard on this matter. > > -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
