×
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.
Hi Jon,
The system is a V7R1 one which is installed only a few weeks ago... including the most recent CUM and groups.
I'll open a PMR on this and keep the list informed.
Kind regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Paris
Sent: woensdag 13 april 2011 19:27
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Varying(4) bug ?
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:03 AM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Indeed, my experience shows that it does not consider unvarying to varying as a format change!
Not so - I have several subprocedures that rely on the fact that they are seen as different. Since moving a fixed to a varying "captures" the original field's length it is pivotal to the subprocedures operation.
This Varying(4) thing is a bug plain and simple and should be reported to IBM as such. Barbara may well not comment in this thread as she tends to not respond to anything that should be a bug report.
I wonder if the OP has checked their PTF levels?
Jon Paris
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
