×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Jon Paris wrote:
On 9-Jun-09, at 5:43 PM, Scott Lindstrom wrote:
You guys frighten the heck out of me! If IBM changed the copy member
don't you think there might have been a reason? Like the data is now
returned differently or ...
Exactly what copy member is it you are using Scott?
Jon:
I don't have access to older /COPY members; but, IIRC, the
significant change was simply that IBM commented out the more or
less useless field definitions following other fields that held the
number of elements. Particularly with a varying number of array
elements, it was meaningless to provide a live definition for a
single PIC X(10) field when it was really an array element. (In
fact, maybe they only supplied a PIC X(0001)?)
Now, if there was a way they could have generated something like
[OCCURS i TO j DEPENDING ON n], where i might be zero, then the
definition might have been useful.
But that's pure speculation over hazy memory.
Tom Liotta
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
