Can we use VALUE Clause in the FD Section Copybook.

ramfrom84 · New User Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 93 Location: chennai

Hi All,
1.While writing the output File from the FD Section copybook , we use value clause in the copybook, It is not working .

2. Can we use REDEFINE Clause in the FD Section of Cobol Program?

Can anyone answer the above Question...

cooldebi · New User Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 18 Location: mumbai

1. I think Value clause is not allowed at record definition level except for 88 level in that record.

2. Yes, Redefine it just after defining the record.

agkshirsagar · Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:24 pm

I would like to add one point.
IF we declare more than one 01 level records in FD section then it is considered implicitely redefined to first 01 level record.

mmwife · Super Moderator Joined: 30 May 2003 Posts: 1592

Value clauses are "allowed" but ignored by the compiler; i.e. no vals are put into the fields to init them.

murmohk1 · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:52 pm

Abhijit,

ramfrom84 · New User Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 93 Location: chennai

I think we cannot use REDEFINE and VALUE Clause in the FD Section.

Phrzby Phil · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:00 pm

If you include this copybook after the FD as the records for a file, then that is in fact what you are telling the compiler to do.

If your request to do this has an error, then you'll get an error message.

A copybook means nothing until it is included in your program.

There is only one active record at a time in each open file's buffer, and multiple 01's are in fact, as said above, all valid descriptions. It's up to the programmer to use them correctly.

William Thompson · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:01 pm

dick scherrer · Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:14 am

Hello,

Multiple level 01s in an FD are always a redefinition. Regardless of the record layouts, they all start at the same memory location. If you have multiple 01s of different lengths in an FD what you have defined is a variable length file.

Many, many files have fields/groups successfully redefined in the FD.

agkshirsagar · Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:11 pm

Murali Said: