>A frequent, even standard way to get past the size limit of a COBOL array, or >more appropriately table, was to define more "empty" space after it. Since >subscript bounds checking was always turned off for performance reasons, you >could effectively address substantially larger than the size limit of any >single 01 item.
I understand. I also read the head of the thread that Bill posted. It seems kind of ridiculous to me to justify all this with "less experienced programmers....". I remember when I was told how to program, I was told to always make sure my coded does not go beyond the table. This is nothing difficult to do. There is no excuse not to do it. And as for the "standard way" to cheat the Cobol table restriction (I'm no Cobol programmer, sorry): Cheating is cheating. Shudder.... But it explains at least why IBM agreed to change the code. Thanks. -- Peter Hunkeler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
