Re: Productivity
- From: "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:33:28 -0500
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4vm6ldF16ggd7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip]
01 IN-DATA.
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"userId=FJS¦location=AURO¦function=filmRequest¦acct".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"Number=1234567890¦userExtension=1403¦routing=branc".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"h¦routeLoc=K-MISS¦routeAttn=Joe¦comments=Comments ".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"Go Here¦debit¦date=121306¦amount=100.00¦sequenceNb".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"r=12345678¦¦credit¦date=051406¦amount=900.00¦seque".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"nceNbr=11122233¦¦ATM¦date=010106¦amount=123.45¦¦ch".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"argeback¦date=010106¦amount=500.00¦¦statement¦date".
12 FILLER PIC X(50) VALUE
"=032906¦amount=1000.00¦ ".
01 INPUT-DATA REDEFINES IN-DATA PIC X(400).
Just an observation; but it seems easier to me,
when populating a large data item, to use the
STRING statement. For example, ...
move spaces to input-data
string
"userId=FJS¦location=AURO¦function=filmRequest¦acct"
"Number=1234567890¦userExtension=1403¦routing=branc"
"h¦routeLoc=K-MISS¦routeAttn=Joe¦comments=Comments "
"Go Here¦debit¦date=121306¦amount=100.00¦sequenceNb"
"r=12345678¦¦credit¦date=051406¦amount=900.00¦seque"
"nceNbr=11122233¦¦ATM¦date=010106¦amount=123.45¦¦ch"
"argeback¦date=010106¦amount=500.00¦¦statement¦date"
"=032906¦amount=1000.00¦"
delimited by size
into input-data.
And, multiple STRING statements allow
for multiple tests.
Furthermore, binary values may be inserted
by using hex literals (non-ANS 85). For example, ...
move spaces to cr-lf-separated-data
string
"abc" x"0d0a" "def" x"0d0a" "ghi" x"0d0a"
delimited by size
into cr-lf-separated-data.
All this with no messy counting!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- References:
- Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Robert Jones
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Frank Swarbrick
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Frank Swarbrick
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Frank Swarbrick
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Frank Swarbrick
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Productivity
- Prev by Date: Re: IBM and COBOL SEARCH ALL
- Next by Date: Re: IBM and COBOL SEARCH ALL
- Previous by thread: Re: Productivity
- Next by thread: Re: Productivity
- Index(es):