IBM Z Software


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).


Shape the future of IBM!

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:

Search existing ideas

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 your ideas

  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

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.

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Not under consideration
Workspace PL/I Compilers
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 4, 2017

RELATED IDEAS

Additional I or W type message for questionable code

I've recently been asked to look at code that relies on compiler dependent initialisation of FIXED DEC variables. The code works from (at least) OS PL/I (V2.3.0) all the way up to EPLI V4R5M0, the IBM Innovation Center - Dallas system hasn't yet installed EPLI V5.x, but is of a questionable nature, and it might be useful to flag it with at least an I or maybe even a W type message.

A new RULES() option, defaulting to the current behaviour, but resulting in an E-type message might also be useful!

Idea priority Low
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     May 15, 2020

    We agree that this is bad coding, but it is also is somewhat esoteric (and we hope not commonplace) and not worth the cost of testing for this

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 5, 2017

    it would be good to flag such code

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 16, 2017

    I think it would most certailny be useful to see the use of character-specific builtin functions on arithmetic data, with the (possible) exception of PICTURE data, be flagged with (at least) a "W" type message.

    I'm less sure about flagging the use of UNSPEC(), as it does have its uses (See: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=84512), and in the past I also used it as a fast replacement for division by powers of 10, i.e. UNSPEC(FIXED(9,2)) = UNSPEC(FIXED(9)), although this could nowadays even done without assignments (or BASED) by using UNION. So for use of UNSPEC() on arithmetic data an "I" type message might be more appropriate.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 15, 2017

    I would certainly want to discourage such code, but it seems very specific - would it be ok for the compiler to flag any use of UNSPEC applied to FIXED DECIMAL? or any use of SUBSTR of UNSPEC of a FIXED DECIMAL? or??

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.