On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 05:42, bob parker wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:46, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > I particularly like the way it deletes the most significant figure(s) > > > when you get an overflow in a numeric field. Or so it did last time I had > > > anything to do with it. > > > > Must have been a compiler option or implementation decision. Our > > programs machine checked on overflow. > > Or maybe I'm just showing my age! - This was in the 1970's.
That reminds me of a funny story from my IBM DOS/VSE COBOL days in the late 80s. One of the senior systems analysts/programmers (he was in his 40s; this was a small shop, so there was lots of duty overlap) was ex- plaining to me that the reason I was having this problem was because of a bug in the COBOL compiler. The Vice President/Analyst/BAL-guru is walking by and overhears the explanation. He busts out laughing, saying that that bug was a Burroughs COBOL bug, and had been fixed in the mid 70s... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA I can't make you have an abortion, but you can *make* me pay child support for 18 years? However, if I want the child (and all the expenses that entails) for the *rest*of*my*life*, and you don't want it for 9 months, tough luck??? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
