And wouldn't it be even nicer if you didn't need to call subroutines, but could just use features of the language itself?! :-)
Frank ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Bill Woodger <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 5:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: COBOL 2014 dynamic capacity tables Well, Peter, there is much in what you say, but be careful of quotes. "Mmm... I smell gas in this dark cellar, has anyone got a match...?" - was the person ignorant of the rapid combustion of said gas when a flame is introduced, or just stupid? Same question for the match provider, and the others with them. Given the chance to question the fleeing ghosts, you'd probably hear "we needed light, we've always done it that way". How to improve Mainframe COBOL programmers is way off this topic. Yes, explain, but also hide it away. I normally dislike the idea that "then some magic happens" in programming, but for the out-of-the-ordinary which is not part of the business logic, stick it in a sub-program (can be embedded these days, and included within a copybook, and the nice compiler will even be able to consider it for "inlining" so you may be able to have your cake and eat it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
