Charles, I believe Anthony is correct here, that these are "Comment entries" instead of "comment lines". The line with *REMARKS is simply a comment line. The way I read the COBOL reference manual, since these lines are in the IDENTIFICATION DIVISION, they are considered comment entries, and are thus simply ignored by the compiler as comments.
I believe this is the appropriate line from the language reference as it pertains to any of the optional paragraphs in the ID DIV. <quote> The comment-entry in any of the optional paragraphs can be any combination of characters from the character set of the computer. The comment-entry is written in Area B on one or more lines. </quote> Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is this valid COBOL syntax? Hmmm. Not seeing errors from EC at the customer. I wonder if that REMARKS line is somehow significant. (And Yes, I can test that and no I have not yet.) I will repost here the preceding lines, and also the lines I posted before as Outlook+Listserve garbled it a bit. 1 2 3 6 7 1234567890123456789012345678901...0123456789012 00017 AUTHOR. JOHN DOE. 00018 DATE-WRITTEN. JULY 1989. 00019 DATE-COMPILED. 00020 *REMARKS. 00021 '******************* ************' 00022 '* VARIOUS COMMENT-LIKE TEXT *' 00023 '* VARIOUS COMMENT-LIKE TEXT *' Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is this valid COBOL syntax? A fast test with Enterprise COBOL 3.4.1 got an error message: 1PP 5655-G53 IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1 ABEND0C7 Date 08/03/2012 Time 10:48:07 Page 5 LineID PL SL ----+-*A-1-B--+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7-| ----+--+- ---8 Map and Cross Reference 0 000056 ' IS THIS A COMMENT? ' ==000056==> IGYDS1089-S "' IS THIS A COMMENT? '" was invalid. Scanning was resumed at the next area "A" item, level-number, or the start of the next clause. And my "gut feeling" is that such a construct is indeed invalid. What are a few of the lines above these lines? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN The information contained in this e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and that you will be held responsible for any such unauthorized activity, including liability for any resulting damages. As appropriate, such incident(s) may also be reported to law enforcement. If you received this e-mail in error, please reply to sender and destroy or delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
