COBOL vs. PL/I 
Author Message
 COBOL vs. PL/I

Quote:

> according to Accredited Standards Committee last revision of COBOL :

> "The USAGE COMPUTATIONAL clause specifies that a radix and format specified by
> the implementor is used to
> represent a numeric item in the storage of the computer. Each implementor
> specifies the precise effect of the
> USAGE COMPUTATIONAL clause upon the alignment and representation of the data
> item in the storage of the
> computer, including the representation of any algebraic sign, and upon the
> range of values that the data item may hold." This implies that this may vary
> between COBOL implementors.

> My question is     what is the the equivalent of PIC S9(4)  COMP  IN PL/1 ? That
> is how do you declare this in Pl/1?

> Johanes Gislason

> thanks in advance

USAGE COMPUTATIONAL is typically binary, but need not be.

If you want binary representation, the equivalent is FIXED BINARY.

If you want decimal representation, use FIXED DECIMAL (4).

If you want to retain a picture specification, use PICTURE 'S9999',
or PICTURE 'S(4)9'



Sun, 30 Sep 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. cobol vs. PL/1

2. Cobol vs. Pl/1

3. Cobol vs PL/1

4. PL/1 VS COBOL

5. Migrating from OS/VS PL/I to VA PL/I

6. pl/1 vs. PL/I

7. PL/I vs. PL/1

8. VS COBOL II vs. COBOL/370

9. os/vs cobol vs cobol II

10. Q: COBOLII vs COBOL LE vs COBOL

11. New CICS removes Translator support for VS COBOL II (and OS/VS COBOL)

12. OS390/VM Cobol vs VS Cobol?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software