Thanks to all who responded ... this helped a lot.
And this is definitely the right place to ask :-)
Have a nice day.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 05.06.2020 um 19:59 schrieb Farley, Peter x23353:
In COBOL the AND logical operator has precedence over the OR logical operator,
so without parenthesis your example is evaluated by the compiler as:
IF (TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE AND SMOD (IND1) = 'B') OR SMOD
(IND1) = 'R'
You said that SMOD (IND1) = 'R' so the condition evaluate as TRUE.
Logical operators AND and OR are parsed in the same way as arithmetic operators
'*' (multiply) and '+' (add). Without parentheses the higher-precedence
operations are combined first.
HTH
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL Question
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Don't know if this is the right place to ask ...
after 25 years playing with other languages like PL/1, C and ASSEMBLER, I have
now to work with COBOL again. Took me some time to get started, because my
COBOL knowledge was at a, say, 1970s level :-)
Now I am in the 4th month of my assignment, and I feel more secure with such
things like EVALUATE, inline PERFORM, SEARCH etc. etc. (avoiding GO TOs most of
the time).
But today I had a strange experience with the following (not so
complicated)
IF condition:
IF (TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE)
AND (SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R')
I first coded it without the parantheses and it did not work ...
IF TVOLL (IND1) NOT = HIGH-VALUE
AND SMOD (IND1) = 'B' OR 'R'
the first part of the condition was false (TVOLL ... was HIGH-VALUE indeed),
and so I hoped that the combined condition would be false, although SMOD ...
was R.
But: nope.
This must be a misunderstanding at my part, what the abbreviation ... OR 'R' ...
means in this case. Maybe in combination with the AND.
Could someone please explain the rules or give any hint? Of course, it is
always a good idea to use parantheses, when in doubt. But I really thought that
it would be ok without parantheses in this case ... what is the problem here,
and what are the semantics in the variant without parantheses?
Thanks, kind regards
Bernd
--
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
Oppolzer-Informatik
Dipl. Inf. Bernd Oppolzer
Bärenhofstraße 23
70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen
—————————————————————
Tel.: +49 711 7949591
priv.: +49 711 7949590
mobil: +49 151 75005359
eMail: bernd.oppol...@t-online.de <mailto:bernd.oppol...@t-online.de>
Web: http://bernd-oppolzer.de/job.htm
—————————————————————
Für Umsatzsteuerzwecke:
SteuerNr.: 97 076 / 29921
USt-ID-Nr.: DE 147 700 393
—————————————————————
Oppolzer-Informatik 1983 - 2019
36years of experience in computer science**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
