Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:44:59 -0600
Only speaking from my own experience, of course, but that's over 30 years -
I have NEVER seen a label used for both purposes. ALTER has been rare
enough; only saw it in the very beginning.
What was worse was PERFORMING a label and then, within the scope of that
PERFORM doing a GOTO to it as well. That isn't formally forbidden but
always struck me as a chancy thing to do. (It was a method used to
implement loops before PERFORM/END-PERFORM was available).
PL
Silfax <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10.27.23.25.27.586401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:23:19 +0000, docdwarf regurgitated the following
High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
TO DEPENDING ON?
worse yet, "GO TO DEPENDING ON" where the targets are also the targets of
ALTER statements
--
Silfax
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- References:
- COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From:
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Silfax
- COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Prev by Date: Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|