Re: Numeric validation revisited
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 11 Jun 2005 18:46:59 -0400
In article <1118524387.523109.236830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> and do this *before* determining if these occur in a File
>> Description... or an area in WORKING-STORAGE that is the object of a READ
>> INTO...
>
>Well, actually, I had read all the messages _before_ posting advice,
>something that you obviously have not bothered with:
>
>>>> I have a user input fields:
>>>> 01 VFYS PIC S9(9)V99 COMP-3.
>>>> 01 VMIN PIC S9(5) COMP-3.
>>>> 01 VMAX PIC S9(5) COMP-3.
>>>> 01 LTAN PIC S9(7) COMP-3.
I had not read enough messages to learn that 'all instances' is supposed
to be read as 'all instances shown in the samples given'... and I doubt,
severely, that enough messages exist to convince me that this is a good
practise.
DD
.
- References:
- Numeric validation
- From: Mark V. Svanesteen
- Re: Numeric validation revisited
- From: Richard
- Re: Numeric validation revisited
- From: docdwarf
- Re: Numeric validation revisited
- From: Richard
- Numeric validation
- Prev by Date: Re: Numeric validation revisited
- Next by Date: Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- Previous by thread: Re: Numeric validation revisited
- Next by thread: Re: Numeric validation revisited
- Index(es):