RE: [Cobolforgcc-devel] FW: MOVE 2002

[William M. K. <wm...@ix...>]

You're right (at least in the FCD).  The rule says,

"2) If a signed numeric literal is specified, the subject of the entry shall
be a signed numeric data item."

but does NOT say that the opposite is true.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cob...@li...
> [mailto:cob...@li...]On Behalf Of Tim
> Josling
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:13 PM
> To: cob...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Cobolforgcc-devel] FW: MOVE 2002
>
>
> As I read it you cannot specify a signed number for an unsigned
> data item. But a signed data item can have an unsigned number.
>
> But then again I am hopeless at reading standards.
>
> Tim Josling
>
> "William M. Klein" wrote:
> >
> > Tim,
> >  Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this.  I believe
> that you are
> > correct that this is "underspecified" in the FCD.  There is no way to
> > determine HOW MANY "leading zeroes" are in the USAGE
> BINARY-LONG item before
> > its "conversion" which makes the "alignment rules" impossible
> to figure out.
> > It is clear that the "signed" phrase is "ignored" - but that
> doesn't really
> > answer your question.
> >
> > I plan on including this in my (last) Public Review comment -
> but you may
> > want to include it as well.
> >
> > P.S.  I haven't checked it - but your "VALUE" clause for V1 may not be
> > "conforming".  I can't remember if you can have an unsigned
> VALUE clause for
> > a USAGE BINARY-LONG SIGNED data item or not.  However, that wouldn't
> > "change" the impact of your question.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cobolforgcc-devel mailing list
> Cob...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cobolforgcc-devel