Thank you nic. Can you please tell me about the "unnecessary conversions" you are referring in your post?
But it all is because of history, there is no as such rule behind it?
Search found 5 matches
- Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:23 pm
- Forum: IBM COBOL, GnuCOBOL (OpenCOBOL), OOCobol.
- Topic: Why the length parameter is mostly declared as COMP in COBOL
- Replies: 3
- Views: 605
- Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:04 pm
- Forum: Thought of the Day, General Talk & Jokes.
- Topic: Count to a Million!
- Replies: 234
- Views: 74122
- Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:04 pm
- Forum: Thought of the Day, General Talk & Jokes.
- Topic: Some phrases that you are using incorrectly.
- Replies: 5
- Views: 635
Re: Some phrases that you are using incorrectly.
ANd the famous in Indian email, after a long email - "Please do the needful".
- Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:03 pm
- Forum: Thought of the Day, General Talk & Jokes.
- Topic: What are you thinking at the moment?
- Replies: 27
- Views: 4036
Re: What are you thinking at the moment?
What is better current or prvious logo of google?? 
- Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:02 pm
- Forum: IBM COBOL, GnuCOBOL (OpenCOBOL), OOCobol.
- Topic: Why the length parameter is mostly declared as COMP in COBOL
- Replies: 3
- Views: 605
Why the length parameter is mostly declared as COMP in COBOL
Hi,
I've seen that the length parameter is mostly declared as COMP in COBOL. For example, it's usally defined as:
Be it VARCHAR length, CICS length or something similar... is there some logical reason behind it?
I've seen that the length parameter is mostly declared as COMP in COBOL. For example, it's usally defined as:
Code: Select all
S9(4) COMP