=== on 24 Mar 2016, 14:54:25 Ann Campbell wrote:
_Why_ is this inefficient and why does efficiency decrease as the number of formats in an operation increases?


What's the best corrective action? Change all the relevant var declarations? Perform intermediate calculations? Apply casts or conversions?

=== on 3 May 2016, 14:10:33 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] We should clarify what "different numeric formats" means:

* We should probably compare the USAGE clauses of the definitions of the operands, taking into account the default value and possible synonyms (e.g. COMP is the same as BINARY)
* According to an http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS6SG3_6.1.0/com.ibm.cobol61.ent.doc/PGandLR/tasks/tpeff05b.html[IBM documentation], we should probably also compare the number of decimal places.
* Should we check that the PICTURE clauses are identical?

The current issue message is "Update the declaration of XXX to make it a YYY". If the 2 operands of a binary expression have different numeric formats, which definition should be updated? It's not always obvious, e.g. when operand 1 is COMP and operand 2 is COMP-3. The message could be changed to avoid this kind of problem.



=== on 3 May 2016, 14:18:48 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Should we keep this rule restricted to "comparisons" or should we extend it to cover arithmetic expressions/statements? In the current code sample, a variable is incremented through a specific syntax (PERFORM VARYING...) using different numeric formats.

=== on 24 May 2016, 15:43:00 Ann Campbell wrote:
Per our discussion, I've forwarded these questions to the original requester.

=== on 29 Nov 2016, 09:34:52 Elena Vilchik wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] There is wording "the more formats there are in a comparison the less ...", while IMO it's weird to say "the more" if there are just max 2 possible. Do you think you could rephrase it? Thanks!

=== on 5 Dec 2016, 09:43:12 Ann Campbell wrote:
done [~elena.vilchik]