|
> From: R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr. > > while it is not required, I have found that it is much easier to deal with > one set of indicators rather than multiple images of those > indicators, each > in their own record space. > > That way I can map the indicators to meaningful names. > > For those reasons, I have always advocated using the SI in COBOL. And this is the issue I'm finding with COBOL. It seems to this newbie that COBOL affords much more flexibility in how one works with the workstation, some of which is not particularly intuitive (at least to me). Because of that, the source modification portion of my tool is going to have to be a bit more intelligent to handle COBOL. My concern is that there are so many possibilities that it may not make sense to support them all, but then how do I triage which ones are "common" and which aren't? In order to decide that, I'm going to have to learn about the different ways that things can be done. I can tell already it's going to be a long, strange road... Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.