Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
From: William M. Klein (wmklein_at_nospam.netcom.com)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:47:03 GMT
> Yes, they do. (For simplicity, I omitted + Punctuation.) I can't think
> of a case where Cobol's procedure division syntax violates English
> syntax. Can you?
Please tell me how the following follows the "rules of English syntax.
Section-1 Section.
Paragraph-2.
Other examples,
If A = "B"
Next Sentence
.
(Possibly "go to Next-Sentence" would be valid English grammar)
also from the world of "better left behind"
Go To .
(the altered go to)
What about
Move Function Current-Date (1:8) to wherever
Or even
Evaluate True
When A = "B"
When C = "D"
Continue
End-Evaluate
wouldn't parse very well in English grammar as I know it
-- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message news:icmek0dhec01s1pjkbbg26o6pk6p7ahmdh@4ax.com... > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:13:02 -0700, "Chuck Stevens" > <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote: > > Richard wrote: >>>>In fact Cobol doesn't have a 'grammar' at all, let alone the English >>>>one, it has a syntax (which is very much a subset of grammar), and not >>>>that of English but a highly stylised and contrived one of its own. > >>> Vocabulary describes valid combinations of letters to form words. >>> Syntax describes valid combinations of words to form sentences. >>> Grammar is Vocabulary + Syntax. It defines a language. >> >>I would contend that the Reserved Word List and the rules for formation of >>COBOL words are suffucient to define the *vocabulary*, that the syntax and >>general rules are sufficient to define valid "utterances" (in terms of >>spoken languages) or perhaps better "constructs" in terms of written >>language and therefore describe the *syntax*. >> >>If, as you state, "Grammar is Vocabulary + Syntax", by your own definition >>the rules of COBOL constitute a *grammar* for that language. > > Yes, they do. (For simplicity, I omitted + Punctuation.) I can't think > of a case where Cobol's procedure division syntax violates English > syntax. Can you? The rule-breaker is INVOKE (or CALL) taking as its > object a method name written as a non-gerundial verb. Defenders of > INVOKE can say 'The standard didn't tell you how to name a method. > Don't blame Cobol because YOU chose the ungrammatical word.' > > INVOKE syntax is not an error, but I see it as a pitfall -- "a hidden > or not easily recognized danger or difficulty." For this reason, I > prefer Inline Invocation. > > Some might say Inline Invocation and Object Oriented in general break > the rules of English, because English is not an object-initial > language. In fact, there are NO object-initial natural languages on > Earth. (Which explains why the Jedi language sounds alien.) That's not > 100% true. Counter-examples are "For whom the bell tolls" and "What do > you treasure?"
- Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Robert Wagner: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
