Re: Is it always possible to write a COBOL program using only 1 sentence per paragraph?

In article <db0l7v$dec$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:db0gd8$amg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Leaving aside the persnickety labelling for statement, sentence,
>> imperative, instruction, what happens at the end of a paragraph (etc)...
>> would someone pass this along to The Standards Folks and ask them for what
>> reason - given this level of interpretation shown by a rank neophyte -
>> they think the function of NEXT SENTENCE is so difficult to grasp?
>
>Well, I guess I'd qualify as A Standards Folk.

Makes the passing-along rather easy, it seems.

[snip]

>The two problems discussed in the '02 standard can be found on Page 833:
>"It is a common belief among users that control is transferred to a position
>after the scope delimiter rather than to a separator period that follows it
>somewhere.

Given that Mr Wong is a moderate neophyte and concluded from his research
that 'based on the discussions I've found on the web, it looks like NEXT
SENTENCE is an unconditional jump to the statement immediately following
the period of the sentence containing the NEXT SENTENCE statement' it
seems that he managed sidestep this 'common belief'... but perhaps those
who post to this group are, by definition, rather uncommon.

DD
.