> We have lots of COBOL that does exactly this. I voiced our concerns to Tom > Ross (aka Captain COBOL) on a GSE COBOL WorkGroup meeting in January. Tom was > there and gave presentations about COBOL v5 and ABO. Very interesting to meet > him and hear him speak. At that time he seemed to be aware of these > differences between COBOL v4 and v5 but seemed inclined to see this as the > customers problem. I'm glad they fixed this. It would have made the migration > to v5 almost impossible for us. It is hard enough without such issues. > > Fred! >
Yes, I think that now there is the acceptance of two different types of "bad code" from IBM. "bad code" that doesn't work consistently with existing compilers, so go sort it out yourself. "bad code" which works consistently with the existing compilers, but relies on how the compilers work for things that, in the Standard, are down to the implementor. IBM are willing to look at getting V5+ to work the same as earlier compilers for the second type of "bad code". Some things, like the new physical location of indexes, immediately after the table they are defined on, are going to take longer to sort out, but it's on the list of things to do. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
