Peter, it becomes a large and wide topic, then, and the discussion of the dynamic table gets lost in it. To discuss it, best it is another topic.
As you have made clear, it is not (always) possible to discern the stupid from the ignorant. For instance, there is/are the person(s) themselves, who, factually, are one, both or neither, and there is the perception (because they have done something stupid). Business logic may require sophisticated solutions, but that does not stop me wanting to divorce the "technical" from the "business". When Problem-determining why Mrs Squirrel (ret.) received 300sqm of living turf instead of a potted plant I want to see the business logic, I want to be able to "read" the program without the technicalities "getting in the way". It it is already clear, or becomes clear, that it is a fault in the "technical", I want to see that in isolation (as much as possible), not to have to untangle it from business logic. If you look on the internet, or in the right places (because LinkedIn is no longer searchable from "outside") you'll see (I hope) that I have publicised many things. This particular topic is not about publicising techniques (until Frank's useful example) but about whether it is reasonable or not for IBM to reject or consider the RFE. I think a considerable amount of what is new in COBOL 2014 will never make it to Enterprise COBOL. I think there was a convergence towards the 1985 Standard by IBM a few years ago (they threw out a hold load of IBM Extensions) but I think the trend now is towards divergence again. Unless or until we need to stop knowing what COBOL does, because of "charging", there's a lot that just doesn't make sense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
