Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:24:50 +0000 (UTC)
In article <7isgg4lh42b61712dijr6otf1otsscuj92@xxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:44:59 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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).
When I worked for EDS a decade or more ago, our published standard was
for each perform to be of a section that consisted of a paragraph and
an exit which wasn't used.
'... a section that consisted of a paragraph and an exit which hasn't been
used'; I'm not sure how to parse this.
A10532-BUILD SECTION.
A10533-BUILD-RTN.
....
A10533-BUILD-EXIT.
EXIT
B21855-VERIFY SECTION
B21855-VERIFY-RTN.
....
B21855-VERIFY-EXIT.
.... et and cetera... but with never a GO TO -EXIT to control flow? I can
see how this evolved out of SECTION-based programming and page-size and
tuning and swapping and such arcana... but never 'using' an exit denied a
programmer an alternative to a SEARCH (for those weeks when said
programmer finds that such a imperative is forbidden because someone
didn't understand it) in the Oldene Dayse when in-line PERFORMS hadn't
been implemented.
DD
.
- 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: Silfax
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: tlmfru
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Howard Brazee
- COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Prev by Date: Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio
- Next by Date: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|