Re: [open-cobol-list] To correct OpenCOBOL 1.1 Programmers Guide page 5-2 ?

[vince]

On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 23:59:20 john Culleton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:51:16 +0000 vince <address@hidden>
> 
> wrote:
> > A small point, unless you are handling a lot of records it is
> > easier just to keep them as fixed length with a byte count
> > field at the front or some other methodology that does a
> > similar job (there is always more than one way to 'skin the
> > cat') nuts, do the job. (sorry, too many years in Cobol (49)!!!
> 
> I always use a subset of COBOL. Things left out of my subset:
> Variable length records, Random file access, Report Writer,
> Sections in the Procedure division, Nested ifs.
> 
> 
> 
> In the punch card days a sequential file could have a header
> record with an id field and containing fixed information followed
> by a series of detail records with the same id field followed by
> a sequence number. Think an assembly followed by its components or
> an invoice header followed by line items.
> 
> The same technique can be used to emulate a variable amount of
> data without actually  getting in to variable length records.


True but punched cards/tape form was the equivilent of Line seq, so easy to 
deal with.

What I was getting at is that in many cases at least with OC and some other 
compilers that the records are actually stored as fixed length at maximum size 
value so negating the value of defining variable length records.

> I have only used COBOL for 44 years so I bow to Vince's senority
> on the subject.

:)