Re: COBOL to RPG - is this right

[Terrence Enger <tenger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron,

The COBOL definitions are at level 03, implying that they are within (at
least) a level 01 definition.  Your RPG definitions are for standalone
fields, which are like level 77 definitions in COBOL.  If the COBOL
program makes use of the level 01 (or 02) field, then you may find it
useful to translate this to an RPG data structure.

<aside> 
It is oh-so-long since I worked in COBOL.  When I started programming in
RPG, I had quite a lot of difficulty coming to terms with all the
arbitrary magic in the language:  indicators 1P, LR, Hn, Ka, ...; files
that open and close themselves; the cycle.  Writing this message reminds
me that level 77 and level 88 are pretty arbitrary, too.
</aside>

Cheers,
Terry.


On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 16:03 -0600, Aaron Bartell wrote:
> So I am doing a project where I am reading a record that has a single
> column with a whole bunch of data.  The need is to read the record and
> then place a data structure over it after I learn what type of record
> it is by reading the first character in the column.  That's all fine
> and dandy but the documentation I received that describes the data is
> COBOL data structures.  I have found a comparison chart of RPG to
> COBOL for data types, but I would like input to see if I actually have
> the conversion correct.  Are the below corresponding fields right?
> And if not could somebody pitty this poor COBOL dimwit and give me the
> right definitions? :-)
>
> COBOL
> 03 FLD1                PIC 9V9(8).
> 03 FLD2                PIC 9(8)V9(10)
> 03 FLD3                PIC S9(15)V999
>
> RPG
> D FLD1           S          9S  8
> D FLD2           S        18S 10
> D FLD3           S        18S   3
>
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron Bartell
> http://mowyourlawn.com