I wonder if specifying this leads to compilers doing (optimised)
tail-recursion - where appropriate.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer
zChampion, Systems Investigator & Performance Troubleshooter, IBM
+44-7802-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): https://developer.ibm.com/tv/mpt/ or
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA
From: David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 08/04/2020 09:38
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize
key applications? - Weirdware
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
*RECURSIVE*
An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
reentered.
You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
subprograms.
If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
be recursively reentered.
On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote:
Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mason.gmu.edu_-7Esmetz3&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=BsPGKdq7-Vl8MW2-WOWZjlZ0NwmcFSpQCLphNznBSDQ&m=vApB8Pw9Cu4OwyYrwyWnJybkrmVmizS30iIud0_La7E&s=_ADEInxU_xV_FnsM-OM-2gGrrNOmBgyVWSRzVJfZkSw&e=
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
behalf of David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?
- Weirdware
Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.
On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
Nested subroutines.
Small example:
ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.
ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
01 LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.
END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on
behalf of David Spiegel <dspiegel...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key
applications? - Weirdware
Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)
If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
Thanks and regards,
David
On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since
COBOL 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.
________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on
behalf of David Spiegel <dspiegel...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key
applications? - Weirdware
How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are
less wordy. But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its
strengths. The one I think most important is that it encourages even
novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a
"top-down" manner: This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing
paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph
executes subsubparagraphs, and so on. Forms good habits, I think.
---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my
temper. -driving motto */
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
] On Behalf Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1. I
always felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were
like tools in a toolbox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
IBM-MAIN
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
IBM-MAIN
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
