Daniel Staal wrote:
> That's a signed number, with 9 digits before the decimal point and 4
> after.
Thanks. That is useful background. Unfortunately it does not explain
the what was shown in the OP, since there were only twelve digits in the
sample COBOL strings, not the thirteen that would be
John McKown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW - the best thing, IMO, is to change the generating program's
> PIC
> clause to:
>
> PIC S9(09)V.9(04) SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE.
>
> This will take up two more characters in the output line. It will
> insert
> an actual decimal point and prefi
--As off Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:53 AM -0800, R. Joseph Newton
is alleged to have said:
Olivier Wirz wrote:
Hello,
What is the best way to convert a numeric cobol format
S9(09)V9(04) in a more readable way.
How would we know? This is a Perl list. To some people here, the
string above ma
FWIW - the best thing, IMO, is to change the generating program's PIC
clause to:
PIC S9(09)V.9(04) SIGN IS LEADING SEPARATE.
This will take up two more characters in the output line. It will insert
an actual decimal point and prefix the number with a + or a - sign. Much
easier to proce
Olivier Wirz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What is the best way to convert a numeric cobol format S9(09)V9(04) in a
> more readable way.
How would we know? This is a Perl list. To some people here, the string above
may be meaningful. To most, it is line noise.
Try:
I am working with formats in COBOL.
--As off Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:40 PM +0100, Olivier Wirz is
alleged to have said:
Hello,
What is the best way to convert a numeric cobol format S9(09)V9(04)
in a more readable way.
For example:
0100} will be -1000.
0100{ will be 1000.
It works with substr and =
Hello,
What is the best way to convert a numeric cobol format S9(09)V9(04) in a
more readable way.
For example:
0100} will be -1000.
0100{ will be 1000.
It works with substr and =~, but may be there is a module or another better
way.
Thank you.
Olivier
--
+++ GM
