COBOL brought you back again...? It was very useful in the days when COBOL was still evolving and lacked facilities that Assembler programmers took for granted. I suppose, something like: move input-date to common-field *> common-field is defined as EXTERNAL ENTER "Open-COBOL" compute RETURN-CODE = function TEST-DATE-YYYYMMDD (common-field)

Groups. bit.listserv.ibm-main

All groups and messages ...

All groups and messages ... ...

Jun 10, 2014 · (From memory: late 60s/early 70s). IBM COBOL dropped it with the advent of Enterprise for z/OS and recommended that OS/VS programs use INSPECT...CONVERTING (which I think is what Robert has used in his Fujitsu source for COBSTRUCT). I would expect that the very old COBOL compiler Vince is targeting probably does support TRANSFORM. Pete.

12) Claimed that some IBM compilers have accepted NEXT SENTENCE in places other than IF and SEARCH. (Then used "Realia" compiler to determine if this was true or not). 13) Stated

All groups and messages ... ...

IBM mainframe COBOL and the AS/400 COBOL. So far they seem virtually identical (other than COMP is COMP-3, you gotta say BINARY.) By the way, are there any differences in coding to get better performance? In the mainframe, I made my subscripts COMP SYNC (I …

All groups and messages ... ...

Jan 30, 2012 · way away in 1970. "Are you kidding? We won't still be using my COBOL program in 2000 -- computers will just be reading our minds by then." Actually, I guess, the biggest problem is not that programs endure -- it is that record layouts (like SMF) and control block formats (like the 24-bit DCB) endure seemingly forever.