RE: 01 02 03...

[Wynn Osborne <wynn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

With all the problems in computing today, e.g., Y2K, isn't it nice to see
this amount of attention given to the indicators? Is there any wonder why
Windows 95 has GPF's out the yeng-yang?  ;-)

You wrote:
>You'll be happy to know that with V4R2 you no longer need indicators for
>EOF, and a lot others.  They will be replaced with BIFs like %found and
>%eof.  Look for an article on the changes by Ted Holt in an upcoming
>Midrange Computing.

If this is true, and I do not doubt you, I would love to see some method,
for example, a compile parm, to disable entirely the use of indicators.

I suppose this would be tougher than it seems though since so many
functions in display and printer files depend on these God awful things.


BTW, has anyone considered this possible bombshell:

On 1/1/00, will indicators continue to work properly??? 

If we chain to a file using *in99 for a not found condition on 12/31/99,
will the indicator "flip over" to *in00 the next day?  And---if so, should
we not immediately embark on a project to increase the size of indicators
to 4 positions? Otherwise, the program will blow up since a "0th element"
in an array of indicators is illegal.

Oops. No we can't do that---the left side of C-specs has only enough space
for 2 position indicators. Maybe we could......

Wynn Osborne,
"Senior" P/A


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---