MVSFORUMS.com

vini · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:57 am Post subject: COBOL Combined Condition

Came across the following piece of code: Confused

kolusu · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:16 am Post subject:

Vini,

The IF statement is translated

papadi · Supermod Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 594 Topics: 1

When you have a doubt like this, you can look at the code generated by the compiler to see how the source code is translated.
_________________
All the best,

di

jim haire · Beginner Joined: 30 Dec 2002 Posts: 140 Topics: 40

I think the statement is translated as:

vini · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject:

Kolusu,

I thought I had heard something similar before but wanted to double check.
Ever wonder why this translation occurs ? Isn't COBOL supposed to be very english-like for enhanced readability ? This seems against that grain...nope ?

Papadi,
I was looking at compiler listing itself. Is the translated code embedded within the cobol or in a seperate section in the listing? I dont see any translation right above or below this stmt.

Thanks, Surprised

papadi · Supermod Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 594 Topics: 1

Does you compile specify LIST or NOLIST? If NOLIST is specified, the translated code is not listed.

If NOLIST is specified, Add a

NorthernDancer · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:31 am Post subject:

This combination is ALWAYS confusing. But somehow IBM comes out with NOT AND NOT = OR; NOT OR NOT = AND. I try to use the +VE tests when possible. Can't always do that though. If it's a code value being tested and the values are pretty rigid, then can set up W.S. Element with an 88 condition name list and omit the one value you're testing for with the NOT. Move the file field or input filed to that, and then test that. It then becomes a +VE test.

Anuj Dhawan · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:47 am Post subject:

Yep, this is confusing, This

papadi · Supermod Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 594 Topics: 1

Simple rulle-of-thumb is to NEVER use NOT with OR on the same field in an IF statement.

And this improper code can be found in many programs that have been "working" for years. . .
_________________
All the best,

di

William Collins · Supermod Joined: 03 Jun 2012 Posts: 437 Topics: 0

vini · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject:

Papadi .... After understanding how this works with help of Anujs findings ... I must say you are absolutely right about avoiding OR on the same field in an IF.

The original statement in question (one with AND) was probably written by the coder to avoid the problem with OR on same field.
So even though at first look it seems confusing ..it is actually avoiding the potential problem which an OR would otherwise create.

vini · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject:

Ooops I meant NOT with OR in the same field ... and not just an OR alone in an IF...

William Collins · Supermod Joined: 03 Jun 2012 Posts: 437 Topics: 0

It was not coded that way to avoid anything. It was coded that way to be lazy/"clever".

If you put an 88 on the field and code the IF, see how easy it would have been and consider how much time you would have saved, let alone ours. You'd never have had to post.

Get a change authorised for it, and get it changed to save the next person a similar problem - and that might be you in a few months time...

misi01 · Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:59 am Post subject:

Dibakar · Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:23 pm Post subject: