In <[email protected]>, on
04/07/2013
at 06:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> said:
>And there, I disagree intensely. If, by happenstance the
>programmer's data have 8 numeric digits on the left, the programmer
>will be compelled to reformat. If the data are entirely numeric,
>this may require inserting a dummy 8-character numeric field to be
>stripped.
The same argument applies to RECFM=FB with numeric digits on the
right.
>If ISPF is the paradigm, does ISPF recognize sequence numbers as
>valid only if they are in ascending order throughout the file?
Yes.
>Will PARMDD
>have a similar constraint on ordering of sequence numbers?
For FB or for VB, and why should they be treated differently?
>A PARMDD file of more than a couple hundred characters is likely to
>have been output of a program rather than typed by hand.
I doubt that. Further, I would expect that anyone writing a PARMDD
file from a program would write all of the data in a single record.
>Stripping sequence numbers and blanks compels the programmer to
>adjust his formatting to compensate for the stripping.
How does VB differ from FB in that regard?
>How can the programmer code a PARM in PARMDD that contains 81
>consecutive blanks or ends with a field of blanks or consists
>entirely of blanks?
How does VB differ from FB in that regard?
>Don't munge the programmer's data!
E.g., by treating sequence numbers as data when they programmer did
not expect you to do so.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
