> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:26:26 -0600
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Lrecl
> To: [email protected]
>
> Paul Gilmartin 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.
Enterprise COBOL 4.2 (I believe) added support for the BLOCK0 compiler option
(my RFE!), which causes "BLOCK CONTAINS 0" to be the default if the BLOCK
CONTAINS clause is omitted.
Use it. Love it. If I recall correctly, "BLOCK0" is actually how the COBOL
standard is defined. NOBLOCK0 is still the default for "backwards
compatibility" reasons. So it might be more appropriate to refer to the "BLOCK
CONTAINS 1" default as "the IBM way", not "the COBOL way". :-)
Frank
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
