Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
From: Robert Wagner (robert_at_wagner.net.yourmammaharvests)
Date: 09/12/04
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: List boxes in Microfocus Dialog System/Net Express?"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:10 GMT
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:06:43 -0400, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net>
wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
>news:mt76k0dbt25is9dnsgmqcfqj3nehr293hc@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:56:15 -0400, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
>> >news:2514k09nj41epdgrmsgiejth6lh0kpc8n5@4ax.com...
>> >[snip]
>> >> I wish we could invoke a method the way we call an intrinsic function
>> >> -- by saying its name. A method is a verb.
>> >
>> >The name of a method is a noun.
>>
>> It is when it's the object of INVOKE, in which case it should be
>> written in gerundial form. For example, the name of the method that
>> writes to a Dictionary should be 'putting' rather than 'put'.
>
>Mr Wagner, consider that a method is an identified, perhaps
>named, procedure (function, process, recipe, etc.) for doing
>something. Now consider the difference between
>ChocolateCake:'Baking' and ChocolateCake:'Bake'.
>The first suggests the recipe itself. The second a command
>to follow the recipe.
Compare 'Start baking a cake' to 'Start bake cake'. The latter is how
two-year-olds talk.
>One other point, Mr Wagner. INVOKE in COBOL has
>a similarity to LET in BASIC. It is not necessary for one to
>mentally process the word to understand that a command
>is to be executed, though INVOKE is necessary for syntax.
In 'Let A take the value of B' and 'Let A equal B', the object of Let
is A. There is no need to modify the verbs because they are not the
objects of Let.
>Consider that
> [Invoke] EmployeeMaster:'Read' using EmployeeRecord
>is understandable without 'Invoke' and, under certain conditions
>is equivalent to the COBOL statement
> Read EmployeeMaster into EmployeeRecord.
>That is, under certain conditions, method names have an
>equivalence to COBOL verbs and may be considered as
>extension to the instruction set.
This is true. It explains why Inline Invocation is better than INVOKE
-- because it lets us say the verb in the same way we say normal Cobol
verbs such as READ.
>Given the subject of this thread, Mr Wagner, would your
>COBOL instructions be READING, WRITING, ADDING,
>SUBTRACTING, etc.?
That would be wrong because they are not preceeded by a verb.
If they were, the form would be PERFORM READING, DO WRITING, CARRY OUT
ADDING, etc.
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: List boxes in Microfocus Dialog System/Net Express?"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Rick Smith: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
