On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:54:19 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Frank,
> As currently included in WD 1.10, I am very much opposed to it. The
problem
>is that the current definition allows the data to be stored within the
structure
>("DIRECT") and to have such items within ODO's and with data after this.
What
>this means is that the "data" after the variable length field MUST be
"moved" in
>storage each time the variable data size changes.
>
>If the proposed definition
> - only allowed for "direct" variable length fields at the 01-level,
> - allowed for "indirect" variable length items within structures
> - figured out how to handle such fields within FILES (or disallowed it
there),
> - didn't allow the same variable length field to be BOTH prefixed and
suffixed
>
>then I would be for it.
18.16.2.3
3) The INDIRECT phrase specifies that the subject of the entry is an
indirect elementary
data item as defined in 8.5.1.7.2, Location of any-length elementary
items. If the
INDIRECT phrase is not specified, an any-length elementary item declared
at the 01 or 77
level or containing the LIMIT phrase is a direct elementary data item;
otherwise, that data item is an indirect elementary data item.
I read that to say a direct data item in the middle of a record (other
than 01/77) must
have a LIMIT. The compiler is expected to allocate LIMIT bytes, similar to
ODO, thus
eliminating the need to move everything following when the length changes.
|
