Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.cobol > #12853 > unrolled thread

Need an example CALL USING RETURNING

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.cobol

Contents

  Need an example CALL USING RETURNING Bruce Axtens <snetxa@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 09:46 +0800
    Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING Arnold Trembley <arnold.trembley@att.net> - 2024-04-06 04:38 -0500
    Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING R Daneel Olivaw <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2024-04-06 13:47 +0200
    Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING Bruce Axtens <snetxa@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 20:29 +0800
      Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING docdwarf@panix.com () - 2024-04-06 13:04 +0000
        Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING Bruce Axtens <snetxa@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 21:11 +0800
          Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING docdwarf@panix.com () - 2024-04-06 17:04 +0000
        Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING R Daneel Olivaw <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2024-04-06 22:06 +0200
          Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING docdwarf@panix.com () - 2024-04-07 01:42 +0000
    Re: Need an example CALL USING RETURNING "Vincent Coen" <VBCoen@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 23:27 +0100

#12853 — Need an example CALL USING RETURNING

Covid is stealing my sleep and my intelligence

FRAME.COB copybook's in the source of SOURCE.COB. It's something I saw 
in the FAQ.

I'm trying to demonstrate to myself how to do user-defined functions.
--- FRAME.COB
        IDENTIFICATION   DIVISION.
        PROGRAM-ID.      frame.
        DATA DIVISION.
        working-storage SECTION.
        01 FOO PIC XXX VALUE "FOO".
        01 OOF PIC XXX.
        PROCEDURE        DIVISION.
            CALL "SOURCE" USING FOO returning into oof.
            IF OOF NOT = "OOF"
              DISPLAY "FAIL"
            ELSE
              DISPLAY "PASS"
            END-IF.
            STOP RUN.

        COPY "SOURCE.COB".
        END PROGRAM frame.


--- SOURCE.COB
        PROGRAM-ID.      SOURCE.
        DATA DIVISION.
        linkage SECTION.
        01 RES PIC XXX.
        01 FOO PIC XXX.
        PROCEDURE        DIVISION USING FOO res.
            display foo.
            MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(FOO) TO RES.
            EXIT PROGRAM.
        END PROGRAM SOURCE.


Can someone please point out the screamingly obvious?

The context for this is that there are some things about CobolCheck that 
are really good and some that suck and this is at the end of one 
rabbithole looking for different ways of testing student code.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12856

On 2024-04-05 8:46 PM, Bruce Axtens wrote:
> Covid is stealing my sleep and my intelligence
> 
> FRAME.COB copybook's in the source of SOURCE.COB. It's something I saw 
> in the FAQ.
> 
> I'm trying to demonstrate to myself how to do user-defined functions.
> --- FRAME.COB
>         IDENTIFICATION   DIVISION.
>         PROGRAM-ID.      frame.
>         DATA DIVISION.
>         working-storage SECTION.
>         01 FOO PIC XXX VALUE "FOO".
>         01 OOF PIC XXX.
>         PROCEDURE        DIVISION.
>             CALL "SOURCE" USING FOO returning into oof.
>             IF OOF NOT = "OOF"
>               DISPLAY "FAIL"
>             ELSE
>               DISPLAY "PASS"
>             END-IF.
>             STOP RUN.
> 
>         COPY "SOURCE.COB".
>         END PROGRAM frame.
> 
> 
> --- SOURCE.COB
>         PROGRAM-ID.      SOURCE.
>         DATA DIVISION.
>         linkage SECTION.
>         01 RES PIC XXX.
>         01 FOO PIC XXX.
>         PROCEDURE        DIVISION USING FOO res.
>             display foo.
>             MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(FOO) TO RES.
>             EXIT PROGRAM.
>         END PROGRAM SOURCE.
> 
> 
> Can someone please point out the screamingly obvious?
> 
> The context for this is that there are some things about CobolCheck that 
> are really good and some that suck and this is at the end of one 
> rabbithole looking for different ways of testing student code.

I don't see any user-defined functions in the example.

The following is based on my (possibly incorrect) reading of the 
GnuCOBOL 3.2 Programmer's Guide.

A user-defined function must use FUNCTION-ID instead of PROGRAM-ID, and 
must also be declared in the calling program's REPOSITORY in the 
CONFIGURATION SECTION.

FUNCTION REVERSE is an ISO standard intrinsic function.  It's already 
built into the compiler, so it cannot be a user-defined function.

RETURNING is part of the PROCEDURE DIVISION in the called subprogram or 
function, and must be declared along with the USING clause.  The 
RETURNING item must be defined as USAGE BINARY-LONG, which does NOT have 
a picture clause.

BINARY-LONG will be either 32 bits or 64 bits, depending on the pointer 
size supported by your GnuCOBOL compiler.  GnuCOBOL can be built to use 
either 32-bit or 64-bit addresses.

So your user-defined function probably needs to look something like this:

  --- SOURCE.COB
          FUNCTION-ID.      SOURCE.
          DATA DIVISION.
          linkage SECTION.
          01 RES USAGE BINARY-LONG.
          01 FOO PIC XXX.
          PROCEDURE DIVISION USING FOO RETURNING res.
              display foo.
              MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(FOO) TO RES.
              EXIT PROGRAM.
          END FUNCTION SOURCE.

And your calling program probably needs a REPOSITORY clause after the 
CONFIGURATION SECTION SPECIAL-NAMES paragraph that looks like this:

          REPOSITORY.
              FUNCTION ALL INTRINSIC
	     FUNCTION SOURCE.

Since SOURCE may be a COBOL reserved word, you might need to rename your 
user defined function.  If SOURCE is a reserved COBOL word, you will get 
some strange compile time errors.

FUNCTION ALL INTRINSIC is not required if your GnuCOBOL configuration 
file is IBM-strict or MVS-strict, since that is the default when 
emulating IBM syntax.  Otherwise, you would need FUNCTION ALL INTRINSIC 
to allow you to use any or all of the intrinsic functions from
the 1989 appendix to the 1985 ISO Standard.

Nested subprograms or user-defined functions inherit the REPOSITORY 
defined in the calling program.

I cannot guarantee my reading is correct in all details, but I hope that 
helps!

Kind regards,


-- 
https://www.arnoldtrembley.com/


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12857

Bruce Axtens wrote:
> Covid is stealing my sleep and my intelligence
> 
> FRAME.COB copybook's in the source of SOURCE.COB. It's something I saw 
> in the FAQ.
> 
> I'm trying to demonstrate to myself how to do user-defined functions.
> --- FRAME.COB
>         IDENTIFICATION   DIVISION.
>         PROGRAM-ID.      frame.
>         DATA DIVISION.
>         working-storage SECTION.
>         01 FOO PIC XXX VALUE "FOO".
>         01 OOF PIC XXX.
>         PROCEDURE        DIVISION.
>             CALL "SOURCE" USING FOO returning into oof.
>             IF OOF NOT = "OOF"
>               DISPLAY "FAIL"
>             ELSE
>               DISPLAY "PASS"
>             END-IF.
>             STOP RUN.
> 
>         COPY "SOURCE.COB".
>         END PROGRAM frame.
> 
> 
> --- SOURCE.COB
>         PROGRAM-ID.      SOURCE.
>         DATA DIVISION.
>         linkage SECTION.
>         01 RES PIC XXX.
>         01 FOO PIC XXX.
>         PROCEDURE        DIVISION USING FOO res.
>             display foo.
>             MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(FOO) TO RES.
>             EXIT PROGRAM.
>         END PROGRAM SOURCE.
> 
> 
> Can someone please point out the screamingly obvious?
> 
> The context for this is that there are some things about CobolCheck that 
> are really good and some that suck and this is at the end of one 
> rabbithole looking for different ways of testing student code.

My experience with Cobol is on mainframes, and before user-defined 
functions were created.
I'd expect you to be using:  CALL "SOURCE" USING FOO OOF.

The syntax "returning into" is unknown to me, but backward compatibility 
would seem to mandate that the CALL line is as I gave above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12858

So I finally figured myself out on this one. I wasn't after a function 
at all.

Some background is in order: I'm a maintainer of the COBOL track at 
Exercism.org. I've been thinking of changing how we do testing. We've 
been using COBOLCHECK which has been adequate but not without issues. I 
was intrigued by how autoconf was used and that there was an example of 
a COBOL program embedded in COBOL program in the FAQ. I thought to adapt 
that by having each test "COPY" the students work in at compile time. I 
wrote a POC which is being discussed at 
https://forum.exercism.org/t/rethinking-the-use-of-cobolcheck/10665

A frame might contain
---
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. frame.
DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
01 WS-ARGUMENT PIC XXX VALUE "FOO".
01 WS-RESULT PIC XXX.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
CALL "source" USING WS-ARGUMENT WS-RESULT.
IF WS-RESULT NOT = "OOF"
DISPLAY "FAIL"
ELSE
DISPLAY "PASS"
END-IF.
STOP RUN.

COPY "source.cob".
END PROGRAM frame.
---
and a student's work
---
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. source.
DATA DIVISION.
LINKAGE SECTION.
01 LS-RESULT PIC XXX.
01 LS-ARGUMENT PIC XXX.
PROCEDURE DIVISION USING LS-ARGUMENT LS-RESULT.
MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(LS-ARGUMENT) TO LS-RESULT.
END PROGRAM source.
---
As said in the Exercism forum post:
 > I don’t have any COBOL industry experience. I learned COBOL in 1983 
and loved it but never got to do anything constructive with it until I 
helped get the COBOL track here going. What’s the usual deal out there 
in the “real world”? Do people write standalones or do they learn early 
how to write callables? What should we be teaching?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12859

In article <uurf6i$22csg$1@dont-email.me>,
Bruce Axtens  <snetxa@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>What???s the usual deal out there 
>in the ???real world???? Do people write standalones or do they learn early 
>how to write callables? What should we be teaching?

You should be teaching what the language is capable of using.  I'm not 
sure where this 'real world' is but im my experience every shop has its 
standards - or waves of standards, and just like each wave leaves its own 
bit of jetsam on the shore each wave of New Standard leaves... stuff in 
the code - and it's up to a Senior Programmer to tell the New Guy 'sure, 
it can be done that way... but the Way We Do It Here is...'

I've sorked in shops where the SEARCH verb was forbidden, spit out by 
pre-compiling tools, because 'people get confused by it' (or Chief Senior 
Programmer didn't understand it).  Same with SORT.  Same with INSPECT 
REPLACING because 'you Never Know when the subroutine will be wanted in 
the Online region and that's a Bad Thing.'

It's frustrating but... their shop, their rules.  Find where they keep 
their skels ('templates'), read the code and learn their songs.'

DD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12860

On 6/4/24 21:04, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
 > Find where they keep
 > their skels ('templates'), read the code and learn their songs.'
Which is essentially what I tell the mentees somewhere in the 
discussions I have with them.

Yeah, "real world" is an unreal term, I grant you that. I suppose I 
should go and talk to folk who define the pedagogy of Exercism and ask 
them. And contribute to the teaching notes that the other mentors use.

Bruce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12861

In article <uurhmo$22csf$1@dont-email.me>,
Bruce Axtens  <snetxa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/4/24 21:04, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> > Find where they keep
> > their skels ('templates'), read the code and learn their songs.'
>Which is essentially what I tell the mentees somewhere in the 
>discussions I have with them.

I was contracted to build some CICS code a few years ago and the 'specs' 
said 'Accept and validate the date.'

I went to the Group Lead - a surly man who didn't have a moment for anyone 
who wasn't an employee: subordinates to torment, superiors to suck up to 
and peers to backstab - and asked 'What's your standard for this?'

The response was 'you're a contractor, it's a date routine, how hard can 
it be, stop bothering me.'

So... I looked at a stack of greenbar and saw where the copylibs were and 
I started to browse them for helpful hints.

Thirty minutes later the Group Lead brought me into the Corner Office 
Idiot's office and shouted 'I caught this guy browsing through our source 
libraries, he's probably a spy, looking to steal our code!'

I picked my jaw up off the floor and said to the COI I received an 
assignment asking for a date routine and I was trying to maintain site 
standards and decrease duplicate effort.'

'Yeah, that's the garbage he said to me, too... he's a contractor, he's so 
smart let him write his own!'

The COI shrugged and said 'He's the Group Leader and his Group follows his 
lead.'

I got back to my desk, called my headhunter and said 'I've just been put 
in an impossible situation and told 'our way or the highway'.  I'm taking 
the second option.'

The headhunter said 'Yeah, we get a lot of that from there.  If I see 
something else I'll call you.'

>Yeah, "real world" is an unreal term, I grant you that.

Things may be different now, what I related occured when YYYY started with 
19.

DD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12862

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <uurf6i$22csg$1@dont-email.me>,
> Bruce Axtens  <snetxa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> What???s the usual deal out there
>> in the ???real world???? Do people write standalones or do they learn early
>> how to write callables? What should we be teaching?
> 
> You should be teaching what the language is capable of using.  I'm not
> sure where this 'real world' is but im my experience every shop has its
> standards - or waves of standards, and just like each wave leaves its own
> bit of jetsam on the shore each wave of New Standard leaves... stuff in
> the code - and it's up to a Senior Programmer to tell the New Guy 'sure,
> it can be done that way... but the Way We Do It Here is...'
> 
> I've sorked in shops where the SEARCH verb was forbidden, spit out by
> pre-compiling tools, because 'people get confused by it' (or Chief Senior
> Programmer didn't understand it).  Same with SORT.  Same with INSPECT
> REPLACING because 'you Never Know when the subroutine will be wanted in
> the Online region and that's a Bad Thing.'
> 
> It's frustrating but... their shop, their rules.  Find where they keep
> their skels ('templates'), read the code and learn their songs.'
> 
> DD
> 

I have never worked on a site where SEARCH or INSPECT REPLACING were 
forbidden, that's ludicrous.
SORT is a bit different, some of the programs I wrote ran in Transaction 
environments, and there were memory constraints.  These programs did not 
normally perform any sorting anyway, but in one case - sorting a table 
in memory - I actually managed to get a C sorting library to work for me.
"Transaction environments" could be "Online" in your terminology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12864

In article <uusa0a$2oiji$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
R Daneel Olivaw  <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> I've sorked in shops where the SEARCH verb was forbidden, spit out by
>> pre-compiling tools, because 'people get confused by it' (or Chief Senior
>> Programmer didn't understand it).  Same with SORT.  Same with INSPECT
>> REPLACING because 'you Never Know when the subroutine will be wanted in
>> the Online region and that's a Bad Thing.'
>> 
>> It's frustrating but... their shop, their rules.  Find where they keep
>> their skels ('templates'), read the code and learn their songs.'

[snip]

>I have never worked on a site where SEARCH or INSPECT REPLACING were 
>forbidden, that's ludicrous.

Their checks to me cleared the bank.  Early on in my career I figured that 
if the shop had been kept 'healthy' they wouldn't have need of my skills.

One place required an In Progress folder that contained source listings 
and copies of the File Descriptors, a hex dump of a data record and the 
fields underlined and bracketed (kind of [__FLD1__]]__FLD2__] 'for 
documentation'.  I found out they had access to FileAid, a utility that 
would print out a list of

01  FILE01REC.
    05 FLD1 (X06): 'VALUE1'.
    05 FLD2 (X06): 'VALUE2'.
    05 FLD3 (906): 000003.

... and so on.  I started putting those into my folders and it garnered 
notice, the Group Lead said it made life a lot easier and I ought to put 
together some samples and documentation for the other programmers...

... but since that wasn't part of the Work Order that paid me he wanted me 
to do it on my own time.

I said 'You've got to be joking' and his response was 'I'm as serious as a 
heart attack, on your own time and within a week.'

I laughed, said something about a snowball fight in Hades and he actually 
made noises indicating that if I didn't give free time for this my 
contract might be 'reconsidered'.

I said 'If I'm not here then you're sure not to get this.  If I'm not paid 
for my hours then you're sure not to get it.  If you can get a forty-hour 
work order cut so I can dedicate a week to this your people will love you 
and you'll make back that money from time saved by your team in the first 
week afterwards.  I'm going to lunch.'

He got the work order, I put together JCL and control statements and 
documentation, the next week at least three people stopped by my cube and 
said 'You've made our lives so much easier!'...

... and at the end of that week I gave my two weeks' notice, that place 
was too sick even for me to tolerate.

>SORT is a bit different, some of the programs I wrote ran in Transaction 
>environments, and there were memory constraints.  These programs did not 
>normally perform any sorting anyway, but in one case - sorting a table 
>in memory - I actually managed to get a C sorting library to work for me.
>"Transaction environments" could be "Online" in your terminology.

That hearkens back to 'no INSPECTs because it might go online', yes.  I 
had a situation about twenty-five years ago where the input was a 
multiple-record-type dataset, similar to a header-rec for customer info 
and then a bunch of transactions under it; I got some COBOL from... maybe 
it was Mr Mosely, maybe from Mr Svalgaard's (sp?) ETKPAK, it bubble-sorted 
the transactions in date sequence so a spiffy set of tallies could be 
kept... it's still running in Prod, somewhere.

They were giants in those days.

DD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12863

Hello Bruce!

Saturday April 06 2024 02:46, Bruce Axtens wrote to All:

Does not the 2nd element need :

 FUNCTION-ID.  SOURCE.

Instead of PROGRAM-ID
 for a function definition but there again 2nd is a module so does not
matter as you defined it by PROGRAM-ID.


Change the name as well as SOURCE is a reserved word.


The interesting thing about Cobol is there is always multi. ways of doing
almost anything even for HELLO WORLD and I have seen a few :)


 > Covid is stealing my sleep and my intelligence

 > FRAME.COB copybook's in the source of SOURCE.COB. It's something I saw
 >  in the FAQ.

 > I'm trying to demonstrate to myself how to do user-defined functions.
 > - --- FRAME.COB
 >         IDENTIFICATION   DIVISION.
 >         PROGRAM-ID.      frame.
 >         DATA DIVISION.
 >         working-storage SECTION.
 >         01 FOO PIC XXX VALUE "FOO".
 >         01 OOF PIC XXX.
 >         PROCEDURE        DIVISION.
 >             CALL "SOURCE" USING FOO returning into oof.
 >             IF OOF NOT = "OOF"
 >               DISPLAY "FAIL"
 >             ELSE
 >               DISPLAY "PASS"
 >             END-IF.
 >             STOP RUN.

 >         COPY "SOURCE.COB".
 >         END PROGRAM frame.


 > - --- SOURCE.COB
 >         PROGRAM-ID.      SOURCE.
 >         DATA DIVISION.
 >         linkage SECTION.
 >         01 RES PIC XXX.
 >         01 FOO PIC XXX.
 >         PROCEDURE        DIVISION USING FOO res.
 >             display foo.
 >             MOVE FUNCTION REVERSE(FOO) TO RES.
 >             EXIT PROGRAM.
 >         END PROGRAM SOURCE.


 > Can someone please point out the screamingly obvious?

 > The context for this is that there are some things about CobolCheck
 > that are really good and some that suck and this is at the end of one
 > rabbithole looking for different ways of testing student code.



Vincent

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.cobol

csiph-web