On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:26:26 -0600, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > >>I don't know how much of this is supported by COBOL except that coding BLOCK >>CONTAINS 0 RECORDS allows SDB to operate. Omitting the BLOCK CONTAINS clause >>is equivalent to coding BLOCK CONTAINS 1 RECORD(S). A supremely stupid >>default except, perhaps, in that it supports unit record devices. > >True. I don't like that, but have accepted do it the 'COBOL way'..... Grrrr. > >So, I always include that BLOCK CONTAINS clause. > >
... or use the BLOCK0 compiler option in COBOL 4.2 and later: http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3cg50/2.11 http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3pg50/2.4.7 Norbert Friemel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
