Standards question on edited fields

From: LX-i (lxi0007_at_netscape.net)
Date: 01/14/04

  • Next message: LX-i: "Re: Standards question on edited fields" 
    Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:23:23 -0600

    Good evening.

    Got a question for you standards folks. We ran into something that
    seems odd in our compiler, and I've submitted it as a potential
    deficiency. However, if it's behaving the way the standard says, I'll
    withdraw it. :) (I've looked, but haven't seen any clarification.)

    We have a field that is 9 characters - a 2-digit day, a 3-character
    month, and a 4-digit year. It's defined as follows...

    01 My-Date.
         03 My-Day Pic 9(02).
         03 My-Month Pic X(03).
         03 My-Year Pic 9(04).

    Then, we have an alphanumeric edited field defined as follows...

    01 My-Edited-Date Pic XXbXXXbXXXX.

    One would expect that moving My-Date (which contains, for example,
    "13JAN2004") to My-Edited-Date would result in "13 JAN 2004". However,
    it's still all crammed together. Now, if we move My-Date to another
    field, defined as...

    01 My-Non-Edited-Date Pic X(09).

    And then move My-Non-Edited-Date to My-Edited-Date, the editing works fine.

    My question is this - reading the compiler's manual and the COBOL 2002
    standard, I didn't see where elementary items were required for moves
    that needed editing, or that editing isn't supported for group-level
    sending moves. Is this a requirement? Or, have I correctly identified
    this as a discrepancy?

    Thanks... :) 

    -- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Next message: LX-i: "Re: Standards question on edited fields"