Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are processing data of unknown quality using field definitions generated by inexperienced programmers, and report programs written by non-programmers. You might expect a fair number of arithmetic operations on packed fields that contained invalid data, and a fair number of divisions by zero. Let's posit that ABENDing on the first such condition is not acceptable to user management.
Would you use ESPIE to trap S0C7's and S0C9's, or would you validate the data with explicit "hand-coded" tests before every arithmetic operation? Or ... ? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 5:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks) <snip> ESPIE beats everything. That's the point. If (a.) all you need to trap is program checks; and (b.) you expect a bunch of them -- use ESPIE. </snip> I'd say "If ...you expect a bunch of them" then make every effort to redesign your application. Because "no program check" can be thought to beat ESPIE by even more than ESPIE beats other forms of recovery. I'd also say "if you're actually interested in debugging, you're much more likely not to want to use ESPIE". ESPIE was intended for ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
