Re: working storage values



In article <5soie6F1a5e45U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Richard" <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f810a73e-cd25-43b8-ac63-10523d5a29b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

This may be why the style that I use has not been constructed around
HIPO charts, arcane IBMisms and other stuff that derives directly from
the 60s.


As an old-time CICS programmer and someone who has therefore been exposed to
EIBCALEN I agree with Richard that this archaic.

The code is testing to see if this is an initial conversation or not, and it
is as simple as that. As such, I find Richard's objections to be pefectly
reasonable.

Mr Dashwood, I can see why Mr Plinston doesn't catch on so very quickly...
but can you, as well, really say that you object to the test for EIBCALEN
(essentially, for those out there not familiar with the conventions of the
Customer Information Command System, the Exec(ution) Interface Block
Common Area Length, set, by definition, to zero the first time the program
is entered and to greater-than-zero for each subsequent entry) and see no
similarity to Mr Plinston's pseudocoding of

Procedure Division.

If ( Already-Read NOT = "Y" )
read ..
MOVE "Y" TO Already-Read
END-IF

do whatever with data ..

.... as both being similar 'first time in' methods?

[snip]

In my opinion, it would be better to simply change the COMM-AREA copy book
so that EIBCALEN had an 88 as follows:

....EIBCALEN PIC S9(whatever...depending on your version of CICS)
88 NEW-CONVERSATION VALUE ZERO.

An 88-level? Mr Plinston has raised objections to those, as well... but
that's for another time, perhaps.

DD

.