Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- From: "William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:49:05 GMT
I see - from your expansion (using the GR), the expanded text violates the SR.
Therefore, this circularity IS prohibited by the current rules (even if it isn't
totally "obvious" - to me - but possibly it is obvious to others).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13dc6aj9nnt2h21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JkoBi.214751$sR4.61918@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To add to my quandry, GR(1) of the SAME AS clause says,identified
"The effect of the SAME AS clause is as though the data description
by data-name-1 had been codedsubordinate
in place of the SAME AS clause, excluding the level-number, name, and the
EXTERNAL, GLOBAL, REDEFINES,
and SELECT WHEN clauses specified for data-name-1; level numbers of
items may be adjusted asthe
described in general rule 2.
NOTE This rule, in combination with the syntax rules for this clause,
prohibits direct or indirect circular reference"
I, personally, don't see how you get from the syntax rules and GR(1) to
(informative) note under GR(1).with
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q6oBi.4946$i91.105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was going to respond to Pete's question about circularity of reference
anthe answer that this was explicitly prohibited. I can see that there was
those(elementary) attempt to do so, but I would be interested in the input of
shall(like Roger and Karl) who have actually worked with it.
SR(3) of the SAME AS clause says,
"The description of data-name-1, including its subordinate data items,
anynot contain a SAME AS clause that references the subject of the entry or
don'tgroup item to which this entry is subordinate."
Clearly (to me) this was trying to avoid circular references, but I
impossible).THINK that it (or any other obvious to me place) prohibits (the
that we
01 AAA Same as BBB.
01 BBB Same as CCC.
01 CCC Same as AAA.
Does anyone see where (how) this is prohibited? I certainly THOUGHT
thinkdealt with it when developing the Standard, but I don't see where. I
it -that SR(3) was supposed to have some sort of "directly or indirectly" in
that isn't there in the final text.
The above is effectively,
01 AAA.
02 BBB.
03 CCC same as AAA.
01 BBB.
02 CCC.
03 AAA same as BBB.
01 CCC.
02 AAA.
03 BBB same as CCC.
Thus all three data-description-entries have cicular references.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- References:
- SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- From: Rick Smith
- SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- Prev by Date: Re: CONSTANT ENTRY (was "forward" references (was: COBOL subscript range checking))
- Next by Date: Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- Previous by thread: Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- Next by thread: Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|