Issue with REDEFINE clause

chetanambi · New User Joined: 21 Jan 2012 Posts: 58 Location: India

I have 2 programs. Program A is calling program B and both the programs are using same copybook. Program A will pass values in that include and program B will do some calculations and will update the fields in the same copybook.

Copybook is defined something like this:

dick scherrer · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:03 am

Hello,

At a quick glance, the redefine looks ok. Suggest you put a few displays in program B after the moves and in program A after the call to program B.

Robert Sample · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:03 am

WHY do you think something is wrong with your REDEFINES? From the symptoms you've described, the problem most likely is in the CALL statement in program A or the LINKAGE SECTION or PROCEDURE DIVISION USING in program B.

Have you displayed the values in program A just before the CALL? Have you displayed the values in program B first thing in the PROCEDURE DIVISION? If not, why not?

What do you think can go wrong with a REDEFINES anyway? All a REDEFINES does is take the exact same storage and give different names to the bytes of storage -- not a whole lot can go wrong with that. There could be something wrong if your various definitions don't match (for example, one has USAGE COMP and the other uses the same bytes as USAGE COMP-3), but that's your fault, not the REDEFINES.

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:59 am

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:25 am

chetanambi · New User Joined: 21 Jan 2012 Posts: 58 Location: India

Thanks a lot for your quick replies..

I found that program B itself is zeroing out the fields based on logic in the program. I overlooked the program. Sorry for that. I will be meticulous next time before posting.

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:58 pm

glad you found your problem.

i will give you more slack next time
and treat you as the professional that you appear to be.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:25 pm

Is the purpose of the REDEFINES only that "shuffle"?

I don't see much problem with coding-out the MOVEs without the REDEFINES. If the REDEFINES has other use, then with the literal values for subscripts it seems OK.

The loop is less "lines of code", but more effort for the poor little machine :-)

Zippiest of all is an "overlapping" MOVE, but you get a diagnostic message these days...

[Edit: Ignore the above line. It will be fast, but will not do what you want]

If you ever think a REDEFINES is wrong, the easiest thing is to look at the compile listing and reassure (or otherwise) yourself that way.

chetanambi · New User Joined: 21 Jan 2012 Posts: 58 Location: India

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:33 pm

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:03 pm

[Edit:

I pickled this one. Something should have "clicked", in fact "thudded", when I mentioned INITIALIZE. But didn't.

None of the below is to do with the question asked. As dbz says later, the example will copy A across the entire field, which is where we get to the initialisation, but where, right up front, we divert from the question. Sorry about that]

MVC and MVCL go left to right. Good. Not the way I want it? Wrong. Exactly the way I want. Lucky, eh?

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:20 am

FM,

left to right would propagate the A throughout the +++++ receiving field. That is why I put the hyperlink in my post.

apparently the TS is aware of this,
since his shuffle was right to left.
9 to 10, 8 to 9, etc
instead of 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 (which is left to right).

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:35 am

Jeez, I must be thinking of too many things at once today (one) :-)

chetanambi · New User Joined: 21 Jan 2012 Posts: 58 Location: India

dbz and Bill,

Sometimes its very difficult to understand what you people discussing

. Its too technical. After reading few times I understood a little

..

By the way what TS refers to?

dick scherrer · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:31 am

Hello,

TS = Topic Starter.

Several of us enjoy taking a topic "to another level".

There is a lot to be learned in these discussions, but unless you are a student of the particular discipline (which goes considerably deeper than using the discipline), it can be quite intimidating

This is true of programming languatges, jcl, database design/implementation, and just about everything else. . .

Hopefiully, in spite of us elaborating, you will, get what you need and what you want to get working - wll work.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:10 pm