× 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?


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

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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 [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.