MVSFORUMS.com

nadh · Intermediate Joined: 08 Oct 2004 Posts: 192 Topics: 89

Hi,

I've coded one variable as below in working storage section. Is this ok. please confirm

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:18 am Post subject:

did it compile?
_________________
Dick Brenholtz
American living in Varel, Germany

nadh · Intermediate Joined: 08 Oct 2004 Posts: 192 Topics: 89

Yeah It is compiled and in production..

Thanks
Nadh

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:53 am Post subject:

then what is your question?
_________________
Dick Brenholtz
American living in Varel, Germany

Terry_Heinze · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:56 am Post subject:

I doubt it compiled cleanly. You might want to look again at the information, warning, error, and severe messages of your compile listing.
P.S. I stand corrected. After checking the manual, it looks like this is legitimate. In 30 years of coding in COBOL, I've never initialized a group item in this manner though. I especially would not initialize a numeric field with X'FF's.
_________________
....Terry

haatvedt · Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:42 pm Post subject:

This could be a situation where they have some sequential or binary search logic for this array. when initializing an array to be used in a binary or sequential search for which the data is known to be in ascending sequence, the unused portion of the array must be initialized to high values to get a binary search to function properly. A sequential search will work without this, but it can be made more efficient when a "not found" condition is being executed by exiting the search when the array key is > the search key. This requires that the unused portion of the array also be initialized to high-values...

just a thought...

I used to do this quite a bit...

lately I define these arrays with an OCCURS DEPENDING ON clause and this can eliminate the need to initialize the array altogether when using the SEARCH or SEARCH ALL verbs in COBOL..

lots of different ways to skin the proverbial cat in this case...

if I had to guess, i would think that this was a way to make the search more
efficient.

thanks,
_________________
Chuck Haatvedt

email --> clastnameatcharterdotnet

(replace lastname, at, dot with appropriate
characters)

Terry_Heinze · Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:53 am Post subject:

A binary search (SEARCH ALL) would not be allowed in this case since there is no INDEXED BY clause present.
_________________
....Terry