This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
See this idea on ideas.ibm.com
Hi,
The RULES compilation option allows to perform compile-time checks on the proper use of data formats.
We have activated the RULES compilation option to educate our developers on the proper use of data formats, and we are satisfied with it.
However, it is sometimes necessary to deviate from these rules, in particular when setting up a framework.
We would like to have a mechanism that would allow us to locally disable RULES controls without disabling them globally.
We have proposed to implement a >>RULES(ON|OFF) directive, see COBOLVUE-I-206.
After reflection this is not the right solution because it would suffice to code >>RULES(OFF) at the beginning of the source code so that there is no longer any control of RULES.
We suggest setting up either a compiler directive or a normalized comment, which would be placed before a COBOL statement and which would disable the RULES checks only for this statement.
This could be a >>NORULES compiler directive, or a *NORULES comment placed immediately before the statement that should not be checked and should not trigger a compile-time warning message .
Idea priority | Low |
By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.
This Idea is being accepted and will be further updated once put into plan. Thanks.
Thank you for the additional information. We are currently reviewing it.
Hi,
Here is a use case: validating a date data-item.
It would be possible to transfer areas CC9 and YY9 to a working area in packed-decimal or binary format before doing the calculation, but this would unnecessarily complicate the code when in any case that is what the compiler will do itself .
Filtering by MSGEXIT will not meet the need: it is not the level of severity of the message that is in question, it is the context of detection of the performance problem that is in question.
In other contexts the detection of the performance problem must apply and the message must be issued.
Also note that the IGYPA3084-W message can be issued on a code deemed non-performing, while this same code can be eliminated by the OPTIMIZE(1) option if it is not referenced (dead code).
Hi Denis, can you please describe in detail what in your framework that requires you to break the RULES that you currently have set?
Would MSGEXIT() work for your scenario?