Extract Outputs from Cobol....

[ASB]

Actually your PIC 9 fields maybe null-filled if they haven't been initialised first...

(and your PIC X field for that matter...)

[pedant]

Depends upon the compiler. Depends upon whether the initialize statement is used. Depends upon whether it is in a group. Depends upon whether any containing group has a value clause. But the language spec does actually define it all.

[cojak]

#Memories, light the corners of my mind....#

[Sysman]

Actually your PIC 9 fields maybe null-filled if they haven't been initialised first...

(and your PIC X field for that matter...)

The bane of my life at one time, that. It was an app maintenance gig and stray nulls caused a good 50% of the bug reports.

But unless the OP gets back with more info, there's not much we can do.

[cojak]

It's perfectly possible to have duplicate field names in COBOL if they belong to different records. You PIC 9 fields will probably be zero filled, the PIC X ones possibly have spaces.

More info needed really.

Actually your PIC 9 fields maybe null-filled if they haven't been initialised first...

(and your PIC X field for that matter...)

[Sysman]

It's perfectly possible to have duplicate field names in COBOL if they belong to different records. You PIC 9 fields will probably be zero filled, the PIC X ones possibly have spaces.

More info needed really.

[Bluebird]

Just looking at some DB extracts from a cobol routine and a tool thats supposed to analyse the extracts is coming up with what seems like duplicate fields...

The only difference is the "picture" of the fields is different even though the field name is the same?

I have PIC9(07) and PICX(07)

any ideas on why it's doing this and what it means?

Cheers

Guys...