Re: Syntax (was: Perfrom Thru

From: William M. Klein (wmklein_at_nospam.netcom.com)
Date: 03/27/04 

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:36:57 GMT

I don't know why this is so hard. The correct statement (as simple as I can
make it) is:

 'It is ture that a vendor's implementation '...MUST include the "Syntax Rules"
and "general Formats" of the Standard'. Unfortunately although that is the case
it is also ture that a compiler which returns a syntax error for code which
complies with the Standard's Syntax Rules is both right and conforming - as long
as it also documents as an error what it issues the message against as an error
AND if it also isues a syntax error or extension message for violations of the
Standard "Syntax Rules" and "General Formats".'

Bottom-Line (again):
  The Standard "Syntax Rules" and "General Formats" tell you when source code is
INVALID (or an extension)
  They (and the Standard) tell you almost NOTHING about source that meets the
rules/formats (the source may be treated as "sytax error free" or not.)

Another quote from the 2002 Standard (that I think appeared in similar formats
in earlier Standards) may (or may not) help you understand how explicitly this
is stated in the Standard:

"3.4 Relationship of a conforming compilation group to a conforming
implementation

The translation of a conforming compilation group by a conforming implementation
is defined only to the extent
specified in standard COBOL. It is possible that a conforming compilation group
will not be translated successfully.
Translation may be unsuccessful due to factors other than lack of conformance of
a compilation group.

NOTE These factors can include the use of optional, processor-dependent, or
implementor-defined language elements and
the limits of an implementation." 

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:c44537$40m$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <ij39c.2174$Dv2.1278@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Sorry - still not quite right.  This is the old "logic" issue.
>
> Mr Klein, I have given two examples, both of which you say are wrong.  In
> both cases you agree with the statement:
>
> 'It appears here, Mr Klein, that a vendor's implementation '...MUST
> include the "Syntax Rules" and "general Formats" of the Standard'.'
>
> Predicated by that statement I have offered two conclusions:
>
> 'If that is the case then a compiler which returns a syntax error for code
> which complies with the Standard's Syntax Rules is wrong.'
>
> ... and ...
>
> 'If that is the case then a compiler which returns a syntax error for code
> which complies with the Standard's Syntax Rules is right.'
>
> ... both of which you say are incorrect.  Your demonstration of Formal
> Logic was enjoyable, certainly, but the brilliance of it was such that it
> appeared not to illuminate but rather to blind.  Given the two clear,
> simple, unambiguous statements I supplied are both, according to you,
> wrong then I find there is one other possibility.  To put that possibility
> in the context of the first two:
>
> 'It appears here, Mr Klein, that a vendor's implementation '...MUST
> include the "Syntax Rules" and "general Formats" of the Standard'.  If
> that is the case then a compiler which returns a syntax error for code
> which complies with the Standard's Syntax Rules is neither right nor
> wrong.'
>
> ... and if that is the case then the conclusion is equally... distasteful.
> 'Right' is wrong, 'wrong' is wrong... is there something I am missing
> here?
>
> DD
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Syntax (was: Perfrom Thru
    ... > AND if it also isues a syntax error or extension message for violations of the ... > Standard "Syntax Rules" and "General Formats".' ... >> 'If that is the case then a compiler which returns a syntax error for code ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Syntax ???
    ... The following is from the 2002 ISO Standard (and really did NOT have an exact ... Syntax rules supplement general formats, identify equivalent words, and define ... formats and the explicit syntax rules of standard COBOL. ... violations of the set of conformance rules specified in 14.7, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: COBOL subscript range checking
    ... I think you are just trying to turn the Standard into saying something that it ... as general formats or syntax rules, ... not specified in general formats or in explicit syntax rules, ... There are general rules in standard COBOL that could have ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Syntax (was: Perfrom Thru
    ... " A) It conforms to the "syntactic specifications" of the Standard (these ... include but are NOT limited to items labeled "Syntax Rules" and "General Rules" ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Syntax (was: Perfrom Thru
    ... >complies with the Standard's Syntax Rules is both right and conforming - as long ... >AND if it also isues a syntax error or extension message for violations of the ... If that is the best you can make it, Mr Klein, then you will not be able ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)