PIC S9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY illegal?

During my exercises with Fujitsu COBOL and my CopyCSV program, I
tried to use a
COPY
REPLACING
--- among other things this:
==9V9== BY ==9.9==
==)V9== BY ==).9==


According to the program listing, the replacement occured as
wanted, so that the resulting PIC clause was as in the subject line,
but the compiler complained about an "Invalid combination in PICTURE
character string. PICTURE 9 assumed" (error msg JMN1434I-S).

I had specified a "SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE" on the group level.

When I add this other REPLACING clause:
== S9== BY == -9==


I get another message:


JMN2008I-W  WHEN SIGN CLAUSE IS SPECIFIED FOR GROUP ITEM,AT LEAST ONE
SIGNED EXTERNAL DECIMAL ITEM MUST BE SPECIFIED FOR SUBORDINATING
ELEMENTARY ITEM. SIGN CLAUSE IGNORED.


But there is, among others, this one, resulting from the REPLACING:

10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC -9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY.


Is the compiler wrong or me?



Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Es sind nicht die Generäle und Könige, die die Geschichte machen,
sondern die breiten Massen des Volkes"                - Nelson Mandela

10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC -9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY

looks like a reasonable PICTURE clause to me. My *guess* is that there may b
e a
problem with your trying to do REPLACING on "bits and pieces" of a PICTURE
clause.  It is true that with the '85 Standard, "(" and ")" always are treat
ed
as "text-words" so they can be used for dividing parts of a REPLACING - it i
s
NOT true that "." without a space causes a text-word.

Furthermore, there (used to be?) a question about whether or not the compile
r
COULD insert a space in the "new text" when doing REPLACE processing.  In ot
her
words,

Replace ==)== by ==)==.

pic 9(1)V9.

could result in

Pic 9(1)   V9.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9Dl0Wtt9flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
>
>    During my exercises with Fujitsu COBOL and my CopyCSV program, I
> tried to use a
>       COPY
>           REPLACING
>             --- among other things this:
>             ==9V9== BY ==9.9==
>             ==)V9== BY ==).9==
>
>
>    According to the program listing, the replacement occured as
> wanted, so that the resulting PIC clause was as in the subject line,
> but the compiler complained about an "Invalid combination in PICTURE
> character string. PICTURE 9 assumed" (error msg JMN1434I-S).
>
>    I had specified a "SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE" on the group level.
>
>    When I add this other REPLACING clause:
>           == S9== BY == -9==
>
>
>    I get another message:
>
>
>  JMN2008I-W  WHEN SIGN CLAUSE IS SPECIFIED FOR GROUP ITEM,AT LEAST ONE
>    SIGNED EXTERNAL DECIMAL ITEM MUST BE SPECIFIED FOR SUBORDINATING
>    ELEMENTARY ITEM. SIGN CLAUSE IGNORED.
>
>
>    But there is, among others, this one, resulting from the REPLACING:
>
>     10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC -9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY.
>
>
>    Is the compiler wrong or me?
>
>
>
> Yours,
> Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
> /--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
>
> "Es sind nicht die Generäle und Könige, die die Geschichte machen,
> sondern die breiten Massen des Volkes"                - Nelson Mandela

l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:


>   I get another message:
>
>
> JMN2008I-W  WHEN SIGN CLAUSE IS SPECIFIED FOR GROUP ITEM,AT LEAST ONE
>   SIGNED EXTERNAL DECIMAL ITEM MUST BE SPECIFIED FOR SUBORDINATING
>   ELEMENTARY ITEM. SIGN CLAUSE IGNORED.
>
>
>   But there is, among others, this one, resulting from the REPLACING:
>
>    10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC -9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY.
>
>
>   Is the compiler wrong or me?

The compiler is right. That's not a "signed decimal item", that's an 'edited
numeric item'. The sign clause in the group item is unnecessary. Also, the P
IC
should be -(11) -- floating minus -- rather than -9(11), which would write
leading zeros.

..     Am  29.07.04
schrieb  wmklein@nospam.netcom.com (William M. Klein)
bei  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in  omcOc.2270$9Y6.1830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
ueber  Re: PIC S9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY illegal?

WMK>  10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC -9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY
WMK>
WMK> looks like a reasonable PICTURE clause to me.

In that form, the compiler only issued only a warning concering the
SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE on the 01-level data name.

It was different with the form quoted in the subject line:


2-12 C                 10 FILLER  PIC X VALUE HT.
2-12 C                 10 CTLGTOTAL-INVOICE-AM PIC S9(11).9(2) USAGE
DISPLAY.
2-13 C                 10 FILLER  PIC X VALUE HT.
2-13 C                 10 CTLGTOTAL-MERCH-AM PIC S9(11).9(2) USAGE
DISPLAY.

Which resulted in 2 Serious Errors:


JMN1434I-S  2-12(RECDES01),2-13(RECDES01)  INVALID COMBINATION IS
SPECIFIED IN PICTURE CHARACTER-STRING. PICTURE 9 ASSUMED.


Sure, I did a fairly complex REPLACING -- it looked like this,
completely:

--------- schnipp -----------------------------------------

72   000720 01  EDITRECORD SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE CHARACTER
73   000730      .
74   000740 COPY RECDES01
75   000750        REPLACING
76   000760          == 01 == BY ==     02 ==
77   000770          == COMP   == BY == DISPLAY ==
78   000780          == COMP-1 == BY == DISPLAY ==
79   000790          == COMP-2 == BY == DISPLAY ==
80   000800          == COMP-3 == BY == DISPLAY ==
81   000810          == COMP-4 == BY == DISPLAY ==
82   000820          == COMP-5 == BY == DISPLAY ==
83   000830          == .
84   000840          10
85   000850          == BY == .
86   000860          10 FILLER  PIC X VALUE HT.
87   000870          10 ==
88   000880*          == S9== BY == -9==
89   000890          ==)V9== BY ==).9==
90   000900          ==9V9== BY ==9.9==
91   000910      .


------------------ schnapp --------------------------------
Note: line 88 is commented out for this compilation.


All these quotes are not taken from the program source, but from
the compilere source listing.

The compiler header line from this listing:

COBOL85 V30L10  COPYCSV            THU JUL 29 23:10:13 2004  0001

This is the Fujitsu 3.0 compiler which I downloaded recently from
their website (www.adtools.com).


The idea behind this REPLACING business was explained in my
contributions in the thread on "Layout hell" started by this Carol:
create a copy of a record with various COMP-n fields which is all
DISPLAY, and which even includes field delimiters, so that it can be
imported into any database program.

For those who would like to check it out themselves, the source
code of the program, the copy element used, the latest compiler
listing and the file with the compiler options are available for
download as http://www.willms-edv.de/download/COBOL/copycsv.zip



Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Die Interessen der Nation lassen sich nicht anders formulieren als unter
dem Gesichtspunkt der herrschenden Klasse oder der Klasse, die die
Herrschaft anstrebt."            - Leo Trotzki         (27. Januar 1932)

..     Am  29.07.04
schrieb  robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner)
bei  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in  41096fb9.195716281@news.optonline.net
ueber  Re: PIC S9(11).9(2) USAGE DISPLAY illegal?
 

RW> The compiler is right. That's not a "signed decimal item", that's an
RW> 'edited numeric item'. The sign clause in the group item is
RW> unnecessary.

OK, I removed it and the compiler no longer complained about
anything in this definition.

RW> Also, the PIC should be -(11) -- floating minus --
RW> rather than -9(11), which would write leading zeros.

Yes, but in this case, I would prefer those leading zeroes in the
field of a TAB delimited file, because otherwise I would have blanks
in the field instead of only digits or decimal separator and the sign.



Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Ohne Pressefreiheit, Vereins- und Versammlungsrecht ist keine
Arbeiterbewegung möglich"        - Friedrich Engels      (Februar 1865)