|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
shreejita
New User
Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 60
Location: chennai
|
|
|
|
Hi
Plz let me know why the length we define in CICS command is always defined in PIC S9(4) COMP.
Thanks & Regards
Shreejita |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Garry Carroll
Senior Member
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 1193
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
|
|
Because IBM decided that a binary half-word should contain the length and, as a result, because the fine manual says so.
Garry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shreejita
New User
Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 60
Location: chennai
|
|
|
|
Thanks Gary,
There should be some reason for IBM to do so. Why not s9(8) comp?
Thanks
Shreejita |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeterHolland
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 2481
Location: Netherlands, Amstelveen
|
|
|
|
| Or no length field at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shreejita
New User
Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 60
Location: chennai
|
|
|
|
| Is this the answer...???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garry Carroll
Senior Member
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 1193
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is this the answer...???? |
Yes, long ago in the days of AMODE(24) it wasn't considered necessary or desirable to exceed half-word length. These days, CICS also provides an FLENGTH field that provides a fullword - S 9(8) COMP) - where half-word is insufficient. The LENGTH remains as was for backward compatibility.
Garry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shreejita
New User
Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 60
Location: chennai
|
|
|
|
Thanks Gary,
Really appreciate your answer and understood ..
Thanks & best wishes.
Shreejita |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
