Exactly. Thank you.
Charles Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> wrote: >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
