Re: Zero supression and tinyCobol
- From: "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:37:51 -0500
"John Culleton" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KY-dnYKkcLdIzy3enZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Apparently in Tiny COBOL when one displays a pic 9 field at a specific
> location it is displayed as if it were defined as pic z. IMO this is
> obviously wrong, but does the ANS standard address this issue?
My previous answer addressed the ISO/ANSI COBOL
standard, but it was incomplete.
With respect to "field at a specific location", neither
the ISO/ANSI COBOL standard, nor X/Open (as far
as I can tell), have a DISPLAY statement for displaying
a "field" at a particular position. X/Open, and now,
ISO/ANSI have a DISPLAY statement for displaying
a "screen-name" at a particular location.
Thus, it would seem that displaying a field at a specific
location would be an implementor extension wherever
it occurs.
Whether this display-pic-9-as-pic-z is seen as an
implementor extension or implementor-defined, it would
seem that standards are of no help to correct what is
"obviously wrong".
.
- References:
- Zero supression and tinyCobol
- From: John Culleton
- Zero supression and tinyCobol
- Prev by Date: Re: religion
- Next by Date: Re: At This Time of Year
- Previous by thread: Re: Zero supression and tinyCobol
- Next by thread: Re: Zero supression and tinyCobol
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|