Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2007 > Use of better qualification related to Re: TYPEDEF and RENAMES
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 |
Use of better qualification related to Re: TYPEDEF and RENAMES
|
|
| Clark F Morris 2007-01-10, 9:55 pm |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:10:37 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net>
wrote:
>
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:50l73jF1gnqnuU1@mid.individual.net...
>TYPEDEFs
>[snip]
>[snip]
>solution
>
>It was offered only as a possible means for overcoming
>a too frequent use of OF (or IN).
This raises a sore point with me. IBM z series Assembler, C/C++, and
DYL280 (now Vision something or another) have group-name.field-name
instead of the awkward field-name of group-name. For English
(including the off-spring US and Canadian variants) speakers, this is
a more natural means of expression. In COBOL this of course would
include file-name.group-name-1.group-name-2.field-name and all other
things you can do with OF/IN. I still resent not having the
capability. If the period causes a problem use another special
character.
>
>
| |
|
| In article <u75bq2t9lktscr48i5c3vujbol8dtiguja@4ax.com>,
Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>This raises a sore point with me. IBM z series Assembler, C/C++, and
>DYL280 (now Vision something or another) have group-name.field-name
>instead of the awkward field-name of group-name.
Damnation, it is time for me to find another contract, my skills are
getting rusty... I seem to recall doing something similar to this when
accessing DB2 tables via COBOL lo, those many years ago.
DD
|
|
|
|
|