On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:00:08 -0500, 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.
>
Once, when I had control of a compiler, I introduced local control
of cross-reference options. I could say something like:
pragma XREF(SHORT)
before copybook members, and:
pragma XREF(FULL)
before mainline code to cause unreferenced identifiers to be reported
if declared in mainline code, but not if declared in copybook code.
I still think that was a good idea.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
