Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2004 > Re: Sort/Merge Error
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Sort/Merge Error
|
|
| JerryMouse 2004-11-16, 8:55 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Fujitsu eventually fixed this - but it was a problem with their
> earlier (now free) compiler(s).
>
> Check your "ASSIGN" clause for your sort-merge (SD) file. The
> message is saying that it is something other than an identifier. My
> guess is that you have a literal there.
>
Ah, no. There is no combination of statements, identifiers, literals,
constants, or jars of mayonnaise that will disappear this message (at least
that we can find). If the program works, ignore the message.
--------
P.S.
I re-arranged your response so you would not be accused of being a (shudder)
"top poster!"
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-11-16, 8:55 pm |
| (As a happy top-poster),
What release of Fujitsu are you using - where you get this-S level message?
What is the exact Select/Assign statement that you have coded that gets this
message (with a "current" version of Fujitsu's compiler)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:8YydnUoNXN3XHAfcRVn-gA@giganews.com...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
>
> Ah, no. There is no combination of statements, identifiers, literals,
> constants, or jars of mayonnaise that will disappear this message (at least
> that we can find). If the program works, ignore the message.
>
> --------
> P.S.
> I re-arranged your response so you would not be accused of being a (shudder)
> "top poster!"
>
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-11-17, 3:55 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:
> (As a happy top-poster),
>
> What release of Fujitsu are you using - where you get this-S level
> message?
> What is the exact Select/Assign statement that you have coded that
> gets this message (with a "current" version of Fujitsu's compiler)
>
V6.1
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO DISK.
SELECT SORT-WORK.
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'
and others.
Of course it doesn't bother us much. For humongous sorts we use a
third-party sort (1-time fee of like $30).
Fujitsu cunningly uses their BSort routine on development machines but you
have to distribute their not-better-than-shuffling-a-deck-of-cards routine
with the compiled application. To the uninitiated this causes much
head-scratching when the customer observes sort times of 30 minutes when the
same sort only takes three minutes on a similar machine at development HQ.
The third-party sort, on large sorts (millions of records), is as good as
BSort; Quick-like-a-bunny it is.
In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an
off-screen ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box
(does that count as "coding your own" sort?).
[color=darkred]
>It's difficult to read
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-11-17, 8:55 pm |
| Of the Select Statements, it is only
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT. (with a period)
That I would expect NOT to get a similar message to that in the original post.
My understanding (and the last time I tried it) was that this did NOT get an
S-level message anymore (nor did)
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'.
In post V4 (or so) compilers. If you are still getting an S-level message, can
you post it for me?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:kMqdnXTXebNzyAbcRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
> V6.1
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO DISK.
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK.
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'
>
> and others.
>
> Of course it doesn't bother us much. For humongous sorts we use a third-party
> sort (1-time fee of like $30).
>
> Fujitsu cunningly uses their BSort routine on development machines but you
> have to distribute their not-better-than-shuffling-a-deck-of-cards routine
> with the compiled application. To the uninitiated this causes much
> head-scratching when the customer observes sort times of 30 minutes when the
> same sort only takes three minutes on a similar machine at development HQ.
>
> The third-party sort, on large sorts (millions of records), is as good as
> BSort; Quick-like-a-bunny it is.
>
> In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an off-screen
> ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box (does that
> count as "coding your own" sort?).
>
>
>
| |
| Richard 2004-11-18, 3:55 am |
| "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote
> In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an
> off-screen ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box
> (does that count as "coding your own" sort?).
I would have thought it preferable to use an indexed file for the sort.
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-11-21, 3:55 am |
| William M. Klein wrote:
> (As a happy top-poster),
>
> What release of Fujitsu are you using - where you get this-S level
> message?
> What is the exact Select/Assign statement that you have coded that
> gets this message (with a "current" version of Fujitsu's compiler)
>
V6.1
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO DISK.
SELECT SORT-WORK.
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'
and others.
Of course it doesn't bother us much. For humongous sorts we use a
third-party sort (1-time fee of like $30).
Fujitsu cunningly uses their BSort routine on development machines but you
have to distribute their not-better-than-shuffling-a-deck-of-cards routine
with the compiled application. To the uninitiated this causes much
head-scratching when the customer observes sort times of 30 minutes when the
same sort only takes three minutes on a similar machine at development HQ.
The third-party sort, on large sorts (millions of records), is as good as
BSort; Quick-like-a-bunny it is.
In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an
off-screen ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box
(does that count as "coding your own" sort?).
[color=darkred]
>It's difficult to read
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-11-22, 8:55 am |
| Of the Select Statements, it is only
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT. (with a period)
That I would expect NOT to get a similar message to that in the original post.
My understanding (and the last time I tried it) was that this did NOT get an
S-level message anymore (nor did)
SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'.
In post V4 (or so) compilers. If you are still getting an S-level message, can
you post it for me?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:kMqdnXTXebNzyAbcRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
> V6.1
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO DISK.
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK.
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO IDSORT
>
> SELECT SORT-WORK ASSIGN TO 'C:\TEMP\SORTWORK'
>
> and others.
>
> Of course it doesn't bother us much. For humongous sorts we use a third-party
> sort (1-time fee of like $30).
>
> Fujitsu cunningly uses their BSort routine on development machines but you
> have to distribute their not-better-than-shuffling-a-deck-of-cards routine
> with the compiled application. To the uninitiated this causes much
> head-scratching when the customer observes sort times of 30 minutes when the
> same sort only takes three minutes on a similar machine at development HQ.
>
> The third-party sort, on large sorts (millions of records), is as good as
> BSort; Quick-like-a-bunny it is.
>
> In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an off-screen
> ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box (does that
> count as "coding your own" sort?).
>
>
>
| |
| Richard 2004-11-22, 8:55 am |
| "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote
> In many cases, it's easier to put the stuff needing sorting into an
> off-screen ListBox (flagged as "Sorted") then retrieve the data from the box
> (does that count as "coding your own" sort?).
I would have thought it preferable to use an indexed file for the sort.
|
|
|
|
|