Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...

From: Chuck Stevens (charles.stevens_at_unisys.com)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:16:50 -0700

I can think of lots of cases in which it is possible for procedure division
code to violate English syntax rules. One that comes to mind is that COBOL
grammar does not require agreement in number between the literals and the
keywords that introduce them: VALUE and VALUES are both permissible in an
88-level item regardless of how many literals there are.

E, VALUES IS and VALUE ARE are all permissible
"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:icmek0dhec01s1pjkbbg26o6pk6p7ahmdh@4ax.com...

> 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?

Sure I can. Scope terminators!

I also think the "direct" and "indirect" objects (for want of a better
"offhand" term) in "MULTIPLY A BY B ROUNDED ..." are in direct conflict with
English syntax.

And if the VALUE clause in the data division is to mimic English syntax, the
fact that there is no requirement in COBOL that the number of literals used
in the list agree with the introductory keyword in number.

> 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.' ...

It appears to me that the purpose of making COBOL "simple English or
pseudo-English" was to make it, insofar as possible, self-documenting.
Whether the syntax violates the rules of *English grammar* is irrelevant so
long as the grammar to which the syntax belongs is unambiguously defined.

That leads to my opinion that the appropriate response to the complaint "But
INVOKE violates the rules of English grammar!" is thus "feh."

    -Chuck Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I need some help from native speakers of Japanese
    ... Ito wrote: ... In English one cannot say *Where does Mary think so [because she saw ... I read "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" about 25 years ago. ... with language is on the ground, ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
    ... > of a case where Cobol's procedure division syntax violates English ... Please tell me how the following follows the "rules of English syntax. ... (Possibly "go to Next-Sentence" would be valid English grammar) ... >>language and therefore describe the *syntax*. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: New symbolic/numeric/dynamic/intuitive programming language
    ... I don't recall ever seeing that particular syntax in elementary ... C is not a good example of a high-level programming language. ... We're back to your mistaken example, where the English says to pick ... something to replace with new meaning than to just learn something ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
    ... One that comes to mind is that COBOL ... >> of a case where Cobol's procedure division syntax violates English ... >long as the grammar to which the syntax belongs is unambiguously defined. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: ILC2005: McCarthy denounces Common Lisp, "Lisp", XML, and Rahul
    ... > has an extra word, lambda, that isn't needed in the with-open-file scenario, ... > but on the issue of subtlety of seemingly harmless syntax variations ... ... > lisp syntax. ... > was that it was like he had programs with english in them. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)