Joel C. Ewing wrote: >It is a common and good practice to use Copy Books to define identical record >layouts for record structures that are accessed by multiple programs, even if >some of the programs only need to access a single field in the record or just >reference the whole record as a group item. You wouldn't want to dicker with a >copybook definition because that may be the authoritative definition for the >record structure.
Indeed. Some of my COBOL programmers are using RACF profiles to protect the 'official' copybooks. Change management procedures ensures the 'correct+official' set is used during compiling. >Still, if there are documentation or cross-program-consistency reasons for the >variables, I would leave them alone. I would also do the same were it my responsibility. This is true for any language. Naming standards could help you to weed out unneeded variables. That is if all programmers are co-operating. ;-) Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
