Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: "Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:15:04 GMT
On 24-May-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not convinced ON ERROR is necessarily the best approach here, or for
> that matter in general, particularly given the ability to "nest" function
> calls.
>
> The '02 standard includes exception handling (for this and in general) in a
> way that, in my opinion, doesn't invalidate existing programs and allows
> their enhancement to catch such problems. Lobby your vendors!
I didn't say "best", I said "better". It would have worked with the original
design, but would have had to have been enhanced over time.
.
- References:
- Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: Walter Murray
- Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: Chuck Stevens
- Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- From: Chuck Stevens
- Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- Prev by Date: COBOL and exceptions (was: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- Next by Date: Re: Occurs Depending Memory Use
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL and exceptions (was: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- Next by thread: Re: Passing an invalid date to INTEGER-OF-DATE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
