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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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?
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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.