Re: Date manipulation
From: Judson McClendon (judmc_at_sunvaley0.com)
Date: 12/29/03
- Next message: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Previous message: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >
> > If that code is in a transaction routine that is called 1000 times a second,
> > the overhead isn't 'nothing'. And what about turning over midnight after
> > the first call and before the last call? Remember Murphy's Law. :-)
>
> But you will notice that the code said:
> DISPLAY 'SIPR702 BEGAN ' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (5:2)
> '/' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (7:2)
> '/' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (1:4)
> ' ' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (09:2) hour
> ':' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (11:2)
> ':' FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (13:2).
>
> Saying when a program starts doesn't happen 1000 times a second.
True. But saying when a transaction began processing might. ;-)
> I was under the impression that this gets converted into one call though.
I would think this should be the case, even if COBOL standards do not
dictate it. A compiler would be pretty inept not to detect and optimize
such a pattern. :-)
-- Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
- Next message: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Previous message: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Binyamin Dissen: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|