Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)

From: Robert Wagner (robert.deletethis_at_wagner.net)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:01:34 GMT

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40f08a0f.180824052@news.optonline.net...
>> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> I'm not changing what I originally said:
>>
>> "The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know.
>AcuCOBOL
>> does it via extensions. So too does SP2. For that matter, we could call COM
>> functions directly."
>>
>> Now that Cobol supports OO, an application program could invoke COM directly.
>> Alternatively, SP2 or a tool like it could be written in Cobol.
>>
>> I admit "So too does SP2" was incorrect using literal interpretation. SP2
does
>> not extend Cobol syntax. But it does extend functionality in the same way OO
>> does.
>
>Are you now saying that any 3rd party product that provides a CALL interface to
>COBOL is "extending functionality the same way that OO does"?

No. I conceptualized sp2 written in OO Cobol, thus a part of the application
program. I don't know whether it is. It could be.

>The ISO 2002 Standard extends the native language by providing OO syntax (and
>semantics). There are 3rd party "class vendors" that provide functionality to
>COBOL OO programs thru this *new* well defined native COBOL interface.
>Comparing an OO 3rd party class system would be reasonable to compare to the
sp2
>CALL interface. However, to compare sp2 itself to ISO 2002 OO syntax simply
>isn't comparing apples to oranges.

A non-OO Cobol program can CALL an OO Cobol program, or even a nested program. I
did that in "oodemo" posted here. The aggregate functions as an OO program.

>AcuCOBOL uses EXTENSION language (extension to both the '85 and '02 Standards)
>to provide functionality comparable to that provided by sp2 via native (both
'85
>and '02) standard language.
>
>Now both of these also provide functionality comparable to that provided by MS
>(or similar) GUI class libraries that can be ACCESSED via OO COBOL syntax.
Was
>that your point?

Yes, that's the concept I had in mind .. but communicated poorly.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Get postion of mouse click on Bitmap using repeat group
    ... Richard's suggestion of using embedded Active X control in sp2 was ... years now with our Web Client product. ... Client is that it allows you to continue using the same COBOL sp2 CALL ... would do it as either a Java Bean/applet or as an ActiveX/OLE/COM component. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
    ... So too does SP2. ... > Now that Cobol supports OO, an application program could invoke COM directly. ... COBOL is "extending functionality the same way that OO does"? ... Comparing an OO 3rd party class system would be reasonable to compare to the sp2 ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Get postion of mouse click on Bitmap using repeat group
    ... Richard's suggestion of using embedded Active X control in sp2 was ... years now with our Web Client product. ... Client is that it allows you to continue using the same COBOL sp2 CALL ... We need identify the exact area of the bitmap that was clicked on. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
    ... So too does SP2. ... Now that Cobol supports OO, an application program could invoke COM directly. ... But it does extend functionality in the same way OO ... linguistic difference between CONSTRUCT Foo ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Fujitsu NetCOBOL and winXP SP2
    ... Having just set up a couple of notebooks for friends, that use XP (SP2) I ... thought I might upgrade my 'old' notebook (the one with COBOL on it) to ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)