Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !



"Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6mrn4dFige6vU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <747hg4965hgegcuojhe10um7ic1f5lnccg@xxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I have seen

PERFORM AAA THRU AAA-EXIT.

AAA SECTION.
AAA-PARAGRAPH.
...
AAA-EXIT.
EXIT.


This was the norm for "Structured COBOL" ala Shelley & Cashman back when
I was taking classes in the late 70's. Most of the programming standards
I ran into required it (back when programming shops actually had
standards!)


I hate that, but apparently it works. When I maintain this,
sometimes I will replace the EXIT. with CONTINUE, when I add debugging
statements.

I can't see what might be considered detrimental to it. I think it makes
the code easier for humans to read as blocks are more plainly delineated.
And the compiler probably doesn't care one way or the other. :-)

bill


Absolutely. See my post in the same thread.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.