The logical instructions were in there from the get-go. I have no idea what the implications were or are for COBOL.
Every coding standard should document exactly why the standard exists, i.e. what benefit it provides. That might help filter out, and allow for updating, of some long-gone person's personal preferences (which is where too many coding standards come from). sas On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:36 AM Schmitt, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define binary fields as signed > (e.g. PIC S9(4) BINARY). I'm wondering why that's the standard. > > The original standards were developed at least 40-60 years ago. They were > revised in 1994 but the signed binary guidance remained. > > One explanation could be if 50 years ago there were only signed binary > instructions such as ADD, but not logical instructions such as ADD LOGICAL. > Or maybe there were some logical instructions but not the full complement > we have today. > > Or it could be that whatever version of COBOL was used then (OS/VS COBOL > or earlier) was more efficient with signed binary, such as due to the > choices it made in instruction selection. > > So my question is, roughly when did the machines get unsigned binary > instructions for halfwords and fullwords? > > > * "are" isn't the right word here, since the COBOL coding conventions are > no longer published anywhere. I only know what they are because I was on > the team that reviewed the 1994 revision, and have a copy saved. >
