Move Statement capability rules with LOW-VALUES

cmohanraj · New User Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 15

I have declared a working storage variable as a comp item.
77 ESDS-RBA PIC S9 (8) USAGE COMP.

MOVE LOW-VALUES TO ESDS-RBA.

I have encountered an error which states:

?"LOW-VALUES" and "ESDS-RBA (BINARY INTEGER)" did not follow the "MOVE" statement compatibility rules.

The statement is discarded.

Now tell me how to eliminate the error.

David P · Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject:

Hi,
As level - 77 is used for the variables that are not going to be modified through the execution you might be getting the error.
I believe using value clause (in working storage)should work for you.

regards,
David.

learnmf · Active User Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 124

HI CHandrasekhar
As i Think LOw-VALUE can not be move to Numeric.

Thanks
CHandra[/quote]

mmwife · Super Moderator Joined: 30 May 2003 Posts: 1504

HI CHandrasekhar,

LOW-VALUES are binary zeros. So if you move zeros to a COMP field it's the same as moving LOW-VALs, except that it works.

learnmf · Active User Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 124

Hi Jack
Correct me.I will be happy to be cleare on this topic .So Correct me if i am wrong.
Low-value is NOT the "lowest legal value" in Cobol. "Low-value" is the
lowest possible value in the alphabetic colating sequence for a specific
machine, and applies only *alphabetic* fields. Numeric fields, on the
other hand, must be legal numeric *digits* in the aplhabetic set you are
using. The lowest legal *Number*(unsigned that is) is zero.

Thanks
Chandra

mmwife · Super Moderator Joined: 30 May 2003 Posts: 1504

Hi Chandra,

LOW-VALUES is equiv to binary (COMP) zeros. HIGH-VALUES is equiv to a binary (COMP) minus one (-1); I guess THAT is the lowest legal value for a 1 byte COMP field.

That's why you'll see some pgms move -1 to a COMP indicator field; they want it to be X'FF'. DB2 pgms do it w/the null ind fields. CICS pgms do it too but I can't remember which field.

mmwife · Super Moderator Joined: 30 May 2003 Posts: 1504

Hi Chandra,

I just read my post. Don't be offended by the Roll Eyes

. They were intended for ME for not remembering the CICS field name I referred to.