> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
>
> On 9/26/2014 2:25 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> > Hey Steve,
> >
> > Your recommendation for defining binary data items and using
> > TRUNC(OPT) does not make the following truncate with COBOL standard
> > rules:
>
> I didn't say it did: only TRUNC(STD) is guaranteed to truncate with COBOL
> standard rules. But the
> COBOL standard rules are not very useful, I think.
>
> Of course, in either case, you still have to know your data, and define your
> fields appropriately. If
> I'm going to be moving 123451 to a binary field (or if a calculation could
> possibly result in such a
> value), I need to plan for my target to be a fullword, pic s9(9).
>
> Programmers still need to be cognizant of the limits of the fields they work
> with. Too many
> programmers, in my opinion, understand the boundaries of half word and full
> word (and double word)
> field values.
???
Perhaps you meant to write "Too few ..."?
> As they say, common sense is not so common.
Indeed, in today's world "common sense" seems to be a (the?) prototypical
oxymoron.
-jc-
**********************************************************************
Information contained in this e-mail message and in any attachments thereto is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this
message, delete any copies held on your systems, notify the sender immediately,
and refrain from using or disclosing all or any part of its content to any
other person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
