Well, I think I indicated that my PL/I knowledge was minimal. I was trying to illustrate a concept, not write a tutorial on PL/I syntax. From your response, I would guess I was eminently successful at my intended task. I guess it's the nature of IBM-MAIN: the more irrelevant the nit, the greater the likelihood of a thorough and tedious correction.
I did miss or forget that the idea of his C routine was to go into his C library routines and "correct" PL/I NULLs; it was not intended to be called from "recompoiled" PL/I so as to provide an appropriate form of nulls to various library routines. I withdraw the suggestion. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Compiler error in z/OS C compiler Many C programmers have the habit of, for clarity, enclosing the returned expression of a RTETURN statement in parentheses, which C neither requires no objects to. In PL/I, however, the parentheses are required (because PL/I has no reserved words, only keywords in context). Thus IF ARG = NULL then RETURN SYSNULL ELSE RETURN ARG; must necessarily become IF ARG = NULL then RETURN (SYSNULL) ELSE RETURN(ARG) ; Bernd would, I should guess, respond to this suggestion by noting that, while it will do the job, its use would require changes in many PL/I source programs and thast they be recompoiled and retested, his more testicular approach makes the required change in just one place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
