Re: SAME AS ('02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy


"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yQLBi.16969$VU2.9343@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Clearly I made a mistake in saying

"the standard does (or should) tell implementers in what order to do
things"

what I meant to say was

"the standard does NOT (or should NOT) tell implementers in what order
to do
things"

No, that part was OK! There was, effectively, another
negative that I compensated for to get to a positive form.
I showed an ellipsis. Correctly restated assertions might
be "The standard tells implementers in what order to do
things only in the text manipulation stage.", or "The
standard does not tell implementers in what order to do
things in the compilation stage."

The effective negative that I omitted was concerning
your belief in my thinking ("... my impression is that you
think ..."); which, when taken out of context, is actually
a very nice thing to say. <g>


I do have WD 1.7 (of the NEXT standard) but don't want to quote that now -
as
the direction is to go back to WD 1.6 (to get rid of the TR's that are now
not
going into the next revision).

As far as "6.4 Logical conversion" as described on page 28 and following,
this
applies (as I think you may have recognized) during the "text manipulation
stage" (because that is where "source text" and "library text" is dealt
with.

When you say,

"If the compilation stage were described in such terms, we would not have
had
these conversations and all would be right with the world. <g>"

This is indeed the "crux of the matter", i.e. the COBOL Standard is very
careful
in NOT providing rules for the order in which stuff needs to be done
during the
compilation stage. It tells implementers what they must do - but leaves
it up
to them how to accomplisth it.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13df16qdkumu47a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PbKBi.24130$nT6.17542@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
According to page 29 of the approved '02 Standard,

This quote appears to be from page 30 of WD 1.7, though
I notice it is missing the marks identifying changes from the
2002 standard. Was the FDIS changed during the approval
process?

"The actions of compiler directing statements and compiler directives
occur in
two logical stages of compilation group processing - the text
manipulation
stage
and the compilation stage.

The text manipulation stage accepts an initial compilation group,
performs
modifications specified by COPY and REPLACE statements and conditional
compilation directives, and substitutes compilation variables into
constant
entries. The result is a structured compilation group for processing by
the
compilation stage.

The compilation stage completes the compilation process utilizing the
structured
compilation group."

Are we talking about different things here?

Maybe! You wrote "... the standard does (or should) tell
implementers in what order to do things." Then in the following
sentence and compensating for the double negative formed by
"Other" and "NOT", you identified "'text manipulation' and
'compilation'" as specifying "in what order to do things".

However "compilation", the processing of the structured
compilation group, is the where I try to find order, while you
insist that "HOW" of this processing is determined by the
implementor. Thus I saw your statements as inconsistent.

Furthermore, you mention "stages" while I mention those
items where "order" is mentioned, or implied.

From page 28, "The rules of logical conversion are applied
to each line of a compilation group in the order that lines of
source text and library text are obtained by the compiler."

From page 30, the phrases "input lines are accepted
sequentially", "processed in the order encountered", and
"applied in order" express certain actions of the three
phases of text manipulation.

If the compilation stage were described in such terms, we
would not have had these conversations and all would be
right with the world. <g>


"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13deheh482ri440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DwEBi.220952$Bo7.80428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rick,
Once again, you can submit an interpretation request IF YOU WANT
TO,
but my
impression is that you think the standard does (or should) tell
implementers in
what order to do things. Other than the "text manipulation" and
"compilation"
stages, this is simply NOT true.

I think you may have meant "logical conversion" (one line at
a time) and "text manipulation" (three phases).







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SAME AS (02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
    ... "the standard does tell implementers in what order to do things" ... "If the compilation stage were described in such terms, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: SAME AS (02 Standard) Clause - and circulatiy
    ... The text manipulation stage accepts an initial compilation group, ... the standard does tell ... implementers in what order to do things." ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Standards question regarding intrinsics with complex arguments
    ... these arguments) is not permitted by the Fortran 95 standard. ... 1501-510 Compilation successful for file test_cmplx.f90. ... I believe the code in question is standard Fortran95 and that the compiler is ... A kind type parameter ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: C# -- Good or Bad?
    ... ECMA standard. ... These implementations use JIT compilation, ... > need languages which allow to work close to the hardware, ... Finally, I'd note that in some cases, interpretation can actually ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Inconsistent Program Results
    ... including one of them might trivially slow down compilation, ... I wrote the above (starting with "The standard headers"). ... return void, but there's no advantage in using that. ... You're cheating yourself by ignoring warning messages. ...
    (comp.lang.c)