I appreciate all the input, I think I am going to change the COMP-3 
items from S9(14)V9999 to S9(12)V9999, then increase the size of the 
numeric edited item to match. I haven't had a chance to test this, next 
Tuesday I'll be back at that company.


-- 

Michael Anderson,
J3k Solutions
Sr.Systems Programmer/Analyst
832.515.3868




Duane Percox wrote:
> Matt writes:
>
> [snip]
>   
>> The 0 or ZERO dilemma was an observational statement, not a guess, from a
>> problem that thrust up it's rather unwelcome existence back around 1992 or
>> so with the compiler on MPE/XL, leading to a preference for the ZERO syntax.
>>     
>
> I wasn't 'there' in the shop you are referencing, but I can say that since 1979
>  with > 4 million lines of HP COBOL code I have never seen that behavior. I have
>  seen other bugs, some pretty gnarly. Since a compiler is a program written by
>  people who aren't perfect it is guaranteed to have some, just like all the code
>  I have written over the years :-)
>
> Also, '<>' is an HP COBOL extension that won't compile on all other
> COBOL compilers, but that would be caught by the compiler in question...
>
> duane
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>   

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *