> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: AW: Re: COBOL5 and ceedump > > > >A frequent, even standard way to get past the size limit of a COBOL array, or > more appropriately table, was to define more "empty" space after it. Since > subscript bounds checking was always turned off for performance reasons, > you could effectively address substantially larger than the size limit of any > single 01 item. > > > > I understand. I also read the head of the thread that Bill posted. > > > > It seems kind of ridiculous to me to justify all this with "less experienced > programmers....". I remember when I was told how to program, I was told to > always make sure my coded does not go beyond the table. This is nothing > difficult to do. There is no excuse not to do it. > > > And as for the "standard way" to cheat the Cobol table restriction (I'm no > Cobol programmer, sorry): Cheating is cheating. Shudder.... But it explains at > least why IBM agreed to change the code. Thanks. >
Not cheating, accomplishing a business need despite the compiler limitations. > > > > -- > Peter Hunkeler > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
