[Default] On 21 Sep 2019 11:13:59 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main 0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 10:03:26 -0600, Jack J. Woehr wrote: > >>On 9/21/19 9:56 AM, Jon Perryman wrote: >>> It's interesting to see an actual use case for C union and bit mapping. >>> In all these years, I've never seen these used in programs I've worked with >>> because of portability issues and not really providing useful functionality >>> for those products. >> >>An archaism of C that remains because old *nix programs use or used them. >> >>Legacy of the era of expensive RAM. >> >And for mapping variant record types. Would SMF data be a good example? > >But C leaves the programmer inundated with sometimes needless identifiers: >One for the union; one for each variant (is the former optional nowadays?) >Pascal is friendlier: leaf fields in any variant may be referenced as fields of >the root if unique, and neither the union nor the variants need be named. >Very similar to the requirements of Assembler. And if I were still active (retired for over 10 years) in any kind of support, I would want the mappings in COBOL, especially if I was in a shop that like my previous ones didn't have SAS or equivalent. DYL280 now Vision something or another also could use thee COBOL mappings and is more powerful in many ways. Clark Morris > >-- gil > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
