Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
From: Robert Wagner (robert.deletethis_at_wagner.net)
Date: 07/07/04
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Cobol Opportunity Available"
- Previous message: Herwig Huener & Josella Simone Playton: "Re: C-preprocessor for COBOL?"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Next in thread: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: Chuck Stevens: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:59:23 GMT
riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>There is not a 'the Standard'. The current standard_s_ in general use
>include ANS'74, ANS'85, ANS'85 + amendment'89, X/Open. It may well be
>that someday we may be able to use the ANS'02 standard.
Between 1989 and 2002 the OFFICIAL standard was ANS'85+'89.
>> GO TO, periods and numbered paragraphs all have their champions on CLC.
>
>No one requires that you use any of these items,
Most mainframe shops have a 'programming standards' document requiring their
use, and code reviews to enforce it.
>> -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu
>> and (formerly) Realia -- which all began life as IBM clones.
>
>The term 'IBM clone' is meaningless in this context. Which of the
>several families of IBM compilers are you referring to that these may
>be a 'clone' of. Some of these are: OSVS, AS/400, Visual Age.
Between 1960 and 1983, most Cobol lived on IBM mainframes.
>MicroFocus 'began life' as very restricted subset on an 16Kb desktop
>machine and then became CIS Cobol on CP/M and MP/M. It was never an
>'IBM clone' but implemented much of X/Open. MicroFocus Level II Cobol
>was almost a complete X/Open implementation. What part of X/Open does
>'IBM' use ?
>
>Perhaps you are confused because there was an 'IBM Cobol' on the PC
>that was a rebadged version of Microfocus Cobol/2. MF Cobol/2
>included many OSVS features, probably implemented at IBM's request for
>this version, but also has MicroSoft, X/Open, and unique features that
>are nothing to do any IBM extensions.
In the mid '80s, MF/CIS/MS was marketed as an IBM mainframe development
platform. Extensions that were incompatible with IBM were not touted features.
>> When a Standard-compliant(?) feature such as IF NUMERIC has tripped me up in
>> the past, that's a universal falsehood in my universe.
>
>But it is not a 'falsehood' of any Cobol, but of your knowledge of how
>to use it correctly.
01 foo pic x.
move 'A' to foo
if foo is numeric
display 'someone does not know how class tests should work'
end-if
>> I would advocate INSPECT ..
>> CONVERTING as a more reliable alternative.
>
>In what way is a 'INSPECT CONVERTING' an alternative for 'IF NUMERIC'?
INSPECT foo CONVERTING
'0123456789 ' TO
' x'
if foo equal to spaces
display 'foo is numeric'
end-if
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Cobol Opportunity Available"
- Previous message: Herwig Huener & Josella Simone Playton: "Re: C-preprocessor for COBOL?"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Next in thread: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Reply: Chuck Stevens: "Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|