I'm assuming you saw my reply as to why it is valid. But I would agree that a simple "RTFM" is not valid here. Yes, it is documented. But it is not at all obvious, even though once you know the actual reason you can retroactively go back to the documentation and say "ah hah!".
>________________________________ > From: Charles Mills <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 11:00 AM >Subject: Re: Is this valid COBOL syntax? > >No, Lizette, I'm sorry, perhaps usually questions of this sort can be looked >up easily but if this particular question is so darned easy, why does nearly >everyone here say it's invalid, but the compiler does not? > >Charles > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Lizette Koehler >Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:47 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Is this valid COBOL syntax? > >Charles, > >Usually questions like these can be easily looked up in the Programming >Langauge Reference Guides. > >If you go to the IBM website to the cobol webpage you can find the Library >with this and other helpful manuals for COBOL > >http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/cobol/zos/ > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
