The woman who assigned me my very first COBOL program in 1980 had me include APPLYWRITEONLY to override the then default. I have no idea what level of COBOL was being used then and there.
> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: COBOL Compiller options in IGYCDOPT > > I can say the NOAWO is default in VS COBOL II compiler. Maybe a carry > forward issue. > > Lizette > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of David Speake > > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:46 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: COBOL Compiller options in IGYCDOPT > > > > Is there a historian in the house? Why is NOAWO the IBM default - > > since forever? I outlined for my SYSPROG the horrendous effect of > > LRECLs say of > > 80 and 32720 on device end channel traffic, run time and resource > utilization. > > Question was raised about work loads that it might favor and why. > > There may be such workloads but I cannot imagine what they might be > > nor why. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
