Information about direct cobol abort codes

hi

i need to use direct abort codes in cobol for aborting my job..
i.e if i have soem fields with non-numeric values then i need to set an
abort code and stop the pgm there itself and return the abort codes..
this should not be done with SOC7 or return codes..
i heard that there are direct abort codes in cobol through which one
can implement this..
if anyone knows about this pls help me..

In article <1165905109.388489.104690@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
E-mailID: <ajai.47@gmail.com> wrote:
>hi
>
>i need to use direct abort codes in cobol for aborting my job..

Please do your own homework.

DD

You don't tell us compiler or operating system, but from the mention of "S0C
7",
I am *guessing* it is IBM mainframe (probably z/OS).  Check out the LE calla
ble
services described at:

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...EEA3170/2.2.5.1
and
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...EEA3170/2.2.5.2

This (of course) assumes that YOU are testing for numeric fields and don't l
et
the system find them for you.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"E-mailID:" <ajai.47@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165905109.388489.104690@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> hi
>
> i need to use direct abort codes in cobol for aborting my job..
> i.e if i have soem fields with non-numeric values then i need to set an
> abort code and stop the pgm there itself and return the abort codes..
> this should not be done with SOC7 or return codes..
> i heard that there are direct abort codes in cobol through which one
> can implement this..
> if anyone knows about this pls help me..
>

On 11 Dec 2006 22:31:49 -0800, "E-mailID:" <ajai.47@gmail.com> wrote:

>i need to use direct abort codes in cobol for aborting my job..
>i.e if i have soem fields with non-numeric values then i need to set an
>abort code and stop the pgm there itself and return the abort codes..
>this should not be done with SOC7 or return codes..
>i heard that there are direct abort codes in cobol through which one
>can implement this..
>if anyone knows about this pls help me..

First, why not exit cleanly with a chosen return code that your JCL
can evaluate?

Look up 'CEE3ABC'.

05  MY-ABORT            PIC X(08)  VALUE 'CEE3ABC'.
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 3 Line(s)
05  MY-ERROR            PIC S9(9)    BINARY VALUE 24.
05  CLEAN-UP            PIC S9(9)    BINARY VALUE 1.
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 3341 Line(s)
CALL MY-ABORT      USING MY-ERROR, CLEAN-UP.

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ellumm$fq$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <1165905109.388489.104690@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> E-mailID: <ajai.47@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
> Please do your own homework.
>
> DD

In other words, DD has no frigging clue!

In article <X%Zgh.104$2Y2.99@newsfe03.lga>,
Kevin M <kmills44@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ellumm$fq$1@reader2.panix.com...
 
>
>In other words, DD has no frigging clue!

I think I have enough of a clue as to what constitutes homework, aye.

DD

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>The original poster's statement of 'this should not be done with SOC7 or
>return codes' indicates, to me, an IBM mainframe operating system of some
>sort... and the lack of any sort of indication as to a reason for avoiding
>the two most basic mechanisms points towards - in my experience - an
>academic exercise.  The original poster's utter silence on the matter
>can be seen as falling into the 'assignment due-date has passed'
>category... for those who, upon hearing hoofbeats, might first conclude
>'horses' instead of 'zebras', with all the associated pitfalls of such
>activity, that is.
>
>(The usual 'my boss says these are forbidden' wouldn't hold much water,
>either, as that would indicate a Shop Standard... in which case this
>situation would, most likely, have been addressed by other programs.)

I've been told similar things by bosses.   This seems to be a very
unlikely student question to me, not really being about CoBOL, but
being about shop standards.

I, also could be wrong, but it fits my experience.

In article <8ffdo2pigvorphfhk06s4oogat2ij19e2t@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

[snip]
 
>
>I've been told similar things by bosses.   This seems to be a very
>unlikely student question to me, not really being about CoBOL, but
>being about shop standards.
>
>I, also could be wrong, but it fits my experience.

I have run into a few of these Shop Standards before... and my
experience has been that I've been given an assignment, coded it, turned
it over for review and then had the listing tossed back on my desk with
a sniffed 'You're using a SEARCH/internal sort/(other
Standards-permissible technique); those aren't allowed here and you have
to use a PERFORM/external sort (other technique)'; I then apologise for
my ignorance and ask 'Is there a program that's done something like this
that I can use as a template?'... and there has always been such.

So... if it were a matter of Shop Standards then I'd assume - based on my
own limited exposure to various places and with all the inherent Risks of
Assumption - that there'd be at least one other program in the system
where the technique that was needed was used; it would be a rather unusual
thing to encounter 'Nobody has had to try anything like that previously
but what you are doing is forbidden.'

(that 'unusual thing' might have been more common in shops that I've
*heard* of, but never worked in... I recall a fellow, decades on back,
telling me that on an airline reservation system he worked on (in IBM
Assembley Language) they were allowed to use only register-based
instructions (most often RR or RX types)... so that at one point *someone*
must have written routines that would use these faster instructions to do
the same stuff as the more-frequently-used SS instructions... but not only
was that an Assembley shop but it was back in the Oldene Dayse, when a
bare-metal coder could code code, lo, such as *ten* bare-metal coders
could not bear to code, todady)

DD

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:37:22 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>I have run into a few of these Shop Standards before... and my
>experience has been that I've been given an assignment, coded it, turned
>it over for review and then had the listing tossed back on my desk with
>a sniffed 'You're using a SEARCH/internal sort/(other
>Standards-permissible technique); those aren't allowed here and you have
>to use a PERFORM/external sort (other technique)'; I then apologise for
>my ignorance and ask 'Is there a program that's done something like this
>that I can use as a template?'... and there has always been such.

The alternative is rare - where a shop standard has existed for some
time and then we are told that it is no longer The Right Way. (Mainly
because they found an important program that had a confusing abort
when the standard didn't work as expected).     Attempting to Updating
standards is normally a futile exercise - unless some big boss was
inconvenienced by the old one (the Important job failed).

Howard Brazee wrote:
> Attempting to Updating
> standards is normally a futile exercise - unless some big boss was
> inconvenienced by the old one (the Important job failed).

This is true.  :)  I once tried to do this in our shop, when we
transitioned from COBOL 74 to COBOL 85.  Some of the most contentious
ones were the ones that weren't new!

One of the standards says something along the lines of "PERFORM...THRU"
is discouraged - however, if it is used, the target listed on the "THRU"
clause must be an empty exit paragraph.  From my time there up to that
point, that wouldn't have changed anyone's code.  There were a couple of
people who told me that *I* was full of crap, and they would use EXIT
paragraphs whenever they darn well pleased.  (Of course, this wasn't
*my* rule (although I agree with it), and what they said they were going
to do didn't violate it anyway!)

Another one was the removal of the requirement to prefix paragraph names
with numbers.  I'll admit to being the idea-man on that one - we no
longer worked from listings, and I'd seen out-of-order paragraphs too
many times to count -- so much so, that whenever I picked up a new
program, I ignored them.  A couple of the old-school guys were like
"What about when we have to code from listings?"  (This became a moot
point a few months later when our RLP died, and we found out that it no
longer had a maintenance contract...)

Since I've been back from my deployment, though, I've been looking at a
lot of code.  (I'm now NCOIC in our shop, so I get included in a lot of
peer reviews...)  Every one of the military folks, and most of the
contractors, are using these amended standards that I produced.  Of
course, we do have a standard (of sorts - not sure if it's official or
not) that maintenance should be done in the existing style of the program.

One of the  things I've found relates to DML.  Those who have used
DML on the Unisys 2200-series mainframes know what I'm talking about.
Basically, the commands are not surrounded by EXEC...END-EXEC blocks,
but the compiler acts as a pre-processor (in COBOL 85 - COBOL 74
actually has a separate pre-processor) and converts these to CALL
statements.  One of these statements is an IF that checks for set
membership (ex. "IF RECORD MEMBER OF AUE-TO-MRECS SET").  Since it's
internally converted to a CALL, there is no END-IF allowed, which can be
annoying if you're structuring your program with scope delimiters.  I
got to thinking, and one day I decided to wrap the IF statement in a
PERFORM...END-PERFORM block.  So now, it looks something like

PERFORM IF RECORD MEMBER OF AUE-TO-MRECS SET
[do something]
ELSE
[do something else]
END-PERFORM

The first time I showed this to everyone (as a "hey, look what we can
do"), about half the people said "Aw, I don't like that - look how
confusing!"  Once again, they came around - it's a standard way of
checking for set membership, especially when we're already nested.
There are two record types in our database that can be joined by one of
three different sets.  It works really well for that.

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is this - it is possible to
change standards, especially if there is a good rationale behind it.
You'll never get 100% agreement - but, if you're doing maintenance,
you're never going to have 100% compliance in the code unless you do a
systematic rewrite of everything.  Over time, in the trenches is where
good standards and bad standards are shaken out.

I still stand by my comment about Mr. Dwarf's "hey, is it apparent what
this code does?" question.  The number 1 standard that I harp on is
commenting - don't assume we know what the code does, tell us; and
telling us why is even better.  That way, if it's not doing it right, we
have an idea what it's trying to do, even if it doesn't do it.  My #2
foot-stomper is error handling.  If something can cause an error, it
should be checked for and handled - this saves hours (and days, in some
cases) in debugging, when a sympathetic error is the one that gets
reported instead of the root cause.

My goal is that, once I'm gone from here, the shop will be better off
because I was there.  Contributions to standards, "best practices," and
"tips & tricks" are one thing that make me feel that I may realize my
goal.  I've also created a wiki where I'm writing a lot of information
about the system - I hope that, since it's easy to write stuff, that
others will read it, and contribute their own knowledge as well.

Sorry - didn't mean to write a book.  It's been a few days since I've
had an adult conversation...  :)

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine