Cobol - BLKSIZE=0

Author

BLKSIZE=0

Howard Brazee

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

On Nov 3, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Clark Morris wrote:

> On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:04 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>
> Of course IBM should provide a compile option to default to BLOCK = 0
> in the FD statement for COBOL. This is permissible within the COBOL
> standard, both 1985 and 2002. We should not have to code it.
------------------SNIP---------

Clark,

You bring up an interesting point. One unfortunately there is
probably no good answer for (at least that will make everyone happy).
I sort of agree with you but I can definitely see where some
companies would not agree to. None the less it would probably be
worth writing up a SHARE requirement for. I would also be interested
to hear how IBM would respond to it (other than a FO). I have not
been part of the requirement process in quite some time, but the last
I was in the loop was that IBM was rather err loose in responding to
requirements. Most of the times that I saw IBM would give a non
answer (to anything but accepted). I guess that is their right but
(to me) it left the audience guessing if IBM really agreed with it or
if they will bury it. I vaguely remember that (when GUIDE submitted
requirements) it was floated around IBM and it usually got to the
right people when they wanted to respond but most of the time it went
into the holding pen in the sky when they didn't want to.

I would think that there would be a rather spirited discussion in the
COBOL Group about the requirement.

Ed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

William M. Klein

2007-11-06, 3:56 am

Such a SHARE requirement already exists:

SSLNGC03003 Compiler option to make BLOCK CONTAINS clause SMS sensitive

which states in part:

"This requirement requests a compiler option that would allow the default for
when the "BLOCK CONTAINS" clause is omitted to be set to the same processing as
the current handling of "BLOCK CONTAINS 0 RECORDS" instead of creating/reading
unblocked files."

The current IBM response from IBM on 2004-01-01 is
ACCEPTED

although I (personally) haven't seen antying to tell me what IBM has done in the
last 3 3/4 years related to it.

Anyone interested in such a feature can/should submit a "REQUEST" via their IBM
marketting support referencing this SHARE requirement.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:2snui35a51b96rp2orfflet1mpmqjqvtn6@
4ax.com...
> On Nov 3, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
>
> ------------------SNIP---------
>
> Clark,
>
> You bring up an interesting point. One unfortunately there is
> probably no good answer for (at least that will make everyone happy).
> I sort of agree with you but I can definitely see where some
> companies would not agree to. None the less it would probably be
> worth writing up a SHARE requirement for. I would also be interested
> to hear how IBM would respond to it (other than a FO). I have not
> been part of the requirement process in quite some time, but the last
> I was in the loop was that IBM was rather err loose in responding to
> requirements. Most of the times that I saw IBM would give a non
> answer (to anything but accepted). I guess that is their right but
> (to me) it left the audience guessing if IBM really agreed with it or
> if they will bury it. I vaguely remember that (when GUIDE submitted
> requirements) it was floated around IBM and it usually got to the
> right people when they wanted to respond but most of the time it went
> into the holding pen in the sky when they didn't want to.
>
> I would think that there would be a rather spirited discussion in the
> COBOL Group about the requirement.
>
> Ed
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to listserv@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
> Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Sponsored Links