Moving Alphanumeric to COMP-3

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:53 pm

Hi,

I am attempting to move a alphanumeric to comp-3 and am successfull with the movement. What is weird is that the storage in comp-3 is similar to comp and defeats the purpose of using comp-3. I am not sure if i am missing something very basic , please can you clarify.

Source code:

Craq Giegerich · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:12 pm

When you display a COMP-3 field it is translated to character (zoned decimal) in order to make it displayable. If you redefine ws-comp3 as ws-compx pic x(3) and display ws-compx you will see (in hex mode) the actual packed decimal (comp-3) value.

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:17 pm

If you would bother to read any of the 10 or 15 threads that have been posted here for the last week or so, about the same subject, you could have learned that the DISPLAY command will convert comp, comp-3 to 'read able' format.

Since the compiler will generate instructions to allow this type of silliness, your conversion moves have been executed correctly.

everything is ok except your understanding of computers.

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:23 pm

Bingo. Thats the answer . Changed to the code to test this and you are right.

I knew it had to be something as simple as that. Feel like a real jerk now but what the heck , as long as i don't ask .. it wouldn't have got cleared.

Thanks Craig.

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:29 pm

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:05 pm

no, your question was why did both appear to be the same when you displayed them. so, you did not know that the display command performed as it did. otherwise you would not have posted the question.

and I did not say that you lacked perfect understanding of computers, I just said you did not understand them enough, nor did you bother to search the forum before posting your question.

by the way, proper construction of your sentence in english would be:

Though you may (or may not) have intended to be so, I found the sarcasm in your post to be rude.

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:11 pm

I disagree again. My question was "What is weird is that the storage in comp-3 is similar to comp and defeats the purpose of using comp-3." and not as you had stated.

Thanks for correcting my english and i am happy you got my point out of it.

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:52 pm

Manu,

anybody who would say that the storage in comp-3 is similar to comp,
attracts my attention because of the obvious lack of understanding of something.

you based your comment on the results of the display command, and managed to talk yourself into a false trail.

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:13 pm

Hi Dick,

I understand the concepts of comp and comp-3 but have never attempted to display it in the past. This is my first attempt to do it and hence it seemed like both were 'stored' similarly although the fact was that both were only 'displayed' similarly . I got the point when Craq mentioned it. But what provoked me is your unwarranted comments attempting to ridicule my knowledge on computers which has allowed this conversation to grow to this extent.

May be you are used to throw in a bit of sarcasm in your posts and i am ok with it as long as it doesn't insult or offend an individual.

May be you are that way and i am this way. Period.
Please can we stop this conversation from growing.

Peace.

ashimer · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:20 pm

Manu you were referring to your WS variables WS-COMP3 and WS-COMP writing it down as comp-3 and comp.

Now as a COBOL programmer what does comp-3 and comp refer to ?

have a look back at your quote

Manuneedhi K · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:26 pm

Thanks for attempting to mediate but Craq and Dick understood what i meant when i said comp and comp-3 there. So the whole conversation is not on that. I am sorry but i am in no mood to continue on this topic. I had a query which was resolved long back and i expected that to be the end of it but had gone this far.