> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> För Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> Skickat: den 20 februari 2013 01:20
> Till: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Article for the boss: COBOL will outlive us all
>
> In
> <a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e628645c29...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se
> >,
> on 02/18/2013
> at 02:48 PM, Thomas Berg <thomas.b...@swedbank.se> said:
>
> >Do you imply that these features is promoting/helping obfuscating ?
>
> It's not the features that are bad in those instances, but rather the
> syntax for requesting the features; that syntax is about as far from
> the purported English-like character of COBOL as you can get.
>
> >I can't immediately see that (except maybe COMPUTATIONAL-n).
>
> If you're just learning COBOL, the magic numbers 77 and 88 totally
> obscure the intent; I consider them to be worse than COMPUTATIONAL-n in
> that regard.
Do you in this regard prefer, e g, that:
01 NAME1 PIC X.
88 ONE VALUE '1'.
88 ZERO VALUE '0'.
- instead be:
01 NAME1 PIC X.
WHEN VALUE '1' SETTRUE ONE.
WHEN VALUE '0' SETTRUE ZERO.
?
But I can't see level number 77 be much confusing, out of line of "normal"
COBOL and maybe superfluous but not much other than that.
Regards
Thomas Berg
________________________________________________________________
Thomas Berg Specialist z/OS/IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
