Martin, The REDEFINESes are not a problem in themselves. The data is identically represented for each of the definitions involved in the REDEFINES (the decimal-point is an "implied" COBOL thing).
What is a problem is how the receiving system is to know how many decimal places there are in that particular piece of data, because that is the only difference in the definitions, the number of implied decimal places. For the receiving system, implied is not good enough, they need to know. Even if we were to say that the REDEFINES had two completely distinct and incompatible definitions, the data itself is not a problem, it fits in the same space (subject to short/long, where one or other of the REDEFINES items is padded, effectively). For me, rather than saying "look at this, then use that field as..." it is better "look at this, use that field, else use another field" and better still "here are two fields, one will be an initial value and the other will contain the data, without you having to know the setting of look at this, but by all means cross check". On Thursday, 4 February 2016 16:47:29 UTC, Martin Packer wrote: > In outline redefines could be achieved with DFSORT Symbols and = / > POSITION. > > Cheers, Martin > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
