Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu wrote on 12/17/2008 05:16:27 PM: Subject: Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files? Overriding LRECL for varying-length files simply works. Specify LRECL=32756 (32752?) and be done with it. Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? Have not tried that but I certainly will. Thanks! Peter I am very interested in this because I gave someone advice on this recently. So I coded a small program to test my memory (see below). I get this error message of the actual LRECL of input file is not the same as the implied LRECL from 01(s) under the FD. So yes you need a JCL override that matches the program. Or else some parameter I have been unable to define. richard IGZ0201W A file attribute mismatch was detected. File QSAMVARIABLE in program T the file specified in the ASSIGN clause had a record length of 255. 39 IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. PROGRAM-ID. TSNOTIFX. *** Environment Division. INPUT-OUTPUT SECTION. FILE-CONTROL. SELECT QsamVariableASSIGN I FILE STATUS IS InStatusWs. *** DATA DIVISION. File Section. FD QsamVariable Record varying. 01 InRecord1. 05 InData1 PIC X. 01 InRecord2. 05 InData2 PIC XX. *** Working-Storage Section. 01. 05 PIC X VALUE SPACE. 88 InEof VALUE 'E'. 88 InInit VALUE SPACE. 05 InStatusWs PIC 99. *** PROCEDURE DIVISION. OPEN INPUT QsamVariable DISPLAY '' InStatusWs '' READ QsamVariable AT END SET InEofTO TRUE NOT AT END DISPLAY '' InData1 '' DISPLAY '' InData2 '' END-READ Goback . - The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
I was asked this question from an internal source and I don't know the answer myself, so I am hoping someone here does. The business task is to be able to handle multiple varying-length sequentially-accessed input files, each with different LRECL values, from a single COBOL file definition, as can be done now with fixed-length input files. Current Enterprise COBOL (we're at V3.4) allows you to specify RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS in the FD for a file, but for fixed-format files only. This specification allows the same FD definition to be used for input files with different LRECL values in different jobs using the same program. The program, of course, must be prepared to recognize the different input LRECL values and do something sensible with each one. In our case we use an assembler subroutine to issue RDJFCB to find out what the actual DCB LRECL is after OPEN (is there a COBOL way to do this?), and then we use READ followed by a move with a range qualifier (move data-name (1:reclength) to ...) into the appropriate structure. Why can't that same phrase (or an equivalent one) be used for varying-length files? The Enterprise COBOL compiler gives the following error if you try: Or is there an alternative COBOL-only solution for varying-length files that none of us have thought of yet? The solution of using an assembler subroutine to do dynamic DCB control block building and I/O functions has already been considered and rejected, even though assembler has to be used now for the RDJFCB function. TIA for any info you can provide. Peter This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:55:55 -0500, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: I was asked this question from an internal source and I don't know the answer myself, so I am hoping someone here does. The business task is to be able to handle multiple varying-length sequentially-accessed input files, each with different LRECL values, from a single COBOL file definition, as can be done now with fixed-length input files. Overriding LRECL for varying-length files simply works. Specify LRECL=32756 (32752?) and be done with it. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
I've always used: RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32767 CHARACTERS DEPENDING ON var-name and then define var-name in WORKING-STORAGE to be a 77 level with the PICTURE of S9(9) BINARY. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files? Overriding LRECL for varying-length files simply works. Specify LRECL=32756 (32752?) and be done with it. Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? Have not tried that but I certainly will. Thanks! Peter This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? I don't believe you need the JCL override. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
Hopefully, you mean RECORD VARYING IN SIZE from 0 to 32767 depending on var-name I do NOT think you can use RECORD CONTAINS with the DEPENDING onphrase. John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote in message news:listserv%20081217160815.1...@bama.ua.edu... I've always used: RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32767 CHARACTERS DEPENDING ON var-name and then define var-name in WORKING-STORAGE to be a 77 level with the PICTURE of S9(9) BINARY. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
I am not positive of this, but I think you DO need the JCL override. If the hard coded maximum LRECL in the FD does NOT match the maximum for the physical file and you don't have the JCL override, I believe you will get a file status of 39 when you OPEN the file indicating a physical file attribute conflict. As indicated elsewhere in the thread, I recommend using the RECORD VARYING IN SIZE rather than RECORD CONTAINS form for the FD of a variable length file. (Among other things, this allows you to determine the actual record length after every read - without negative subscripting to get the LLZZ information from the RDW) FYI, There is an existing SHARE requirement for getting COBOL to (better) handle SMS information without worrying about coding FD stuff. Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote in message news:756912698-1229553371-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-61158795 8...@bxe348.bisx.prod.on.blackberry... Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? I don't believe you need the JCL override. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
I am not positive of this, but I think you DO need the JCL override. There is a better way than discussing it. Test it. Unfortunately, I can't at the moment. (Can you say 'downsizing' boys girls?) - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
On 17 Dec 2008 14:37:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? I don't believe you need the JCL override. You DO because of the terminal *** of the compiler/runt-time designers. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL question: Why can't we use RECORD CONTAINS 0 CHARACTERS for RECFM=V files?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:26:01 -0400, Clark Morris wrote: On 17 Dec 2008 14:37:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's variable max length is? I don't believe you need the JCL override. You DO because of the terminal *** of the compiler/runt-time designers. - They probably used the same validation code for output, where it makes sense, and for input, where an inequality would suffice. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
