ISO/IEC 1989:2002(E), the "COBOL 2002" standard (yes, I did pay for it), says the following:
F.1 Substantive changes potentially affecting existing programs 1) Obsolete elements. The following features that were classified as obsolete in the previous COBOL standard, have been removed from this International Standard: — AUTHOR, INSTALLATION, DATE-WRITTEN, DATE-COMPILED, and SECURITY paragraphs Enterprise COBOL makes no claim to supporting COBOL 2002, and I don't know what COBOL 85 says about these paragraphs. Probably "obsolete, but still supported". Frank >________________________________ > From: "McKown, John" <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com> >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 11:08 AM >Subject: Re: Is this valid COBOL syntax? > >Ah! It is part of the "DATE-COMPILED." paragraph! . Let me test ... . It does >compile! Why? Let's look at the LRM. >http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3lr50/3.1.6 ><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. > >The paragraph name DATE-COMPILED and any comment-entry associated with it >appear in the source code listing with the current date inserted. For example: > > > DATE-COMPILED. 11/30/07. > >Comment-entries serve only as documentation; they do not affect the meaning of >the program. A hyphen in the indicator area (column 7) is not permitted in >comment-entries. ></quote> > >So, everything after the "DATE-COMPILED." and in area B is ignored as a >comment. The code certainly matches that description. Does this conform to the >ANSI standards for COBOL? I don't know and won't pay $30.00 for a copy of the >standards in a PDF document. I likely wouldn't understand them anyway. Likely >as readable and understandable as the IRS tax codes. > >-- >John McKown >Systems Engineer IV >IT > >Administrative Services Group > >HealthMarkets(r) > >9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 >(817) 255-3225 phone * >john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com > >Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or >proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact >the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the >insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance >Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The >MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills >> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:03 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> 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:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of McKown, John >> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:53 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
