> What's wrong with extending the standard on the platform where COBOL rules?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Your "question" is an asservtion contrary to fact; I never suggested that there is anything wrong with extensions. What I did suggest is that the semantics of a language are in the defining document, and that the semantics of the extension are irrelevant to determining the semantics of the language itself. > The mainframe's raison d'être is to run COBOL programs! ROTF,LMAO. I have decades of experience with mainframes running no COBOL code. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 8:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware What's wrong with extending the standard on the platform where COBOL rules? The mainframe's raison d'être is to run COBOL programs! The ANSI standard specifies OO but that seems to be only for Java interop on z/OS. On 2020-04-08 8:30 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Either ANSI requires allowing recursive inner subroutines or it doesn't. If > ANSI requires it then IBM isn't ANSI compliant; if ANSI doesn't require it > then it clearly has to do with COBOL semantics and the other compilers have > extended the standard. If ANSI doesn't require it then the question remains > why not. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of > David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:37 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - > Weirdware > > On 2020-04-08 7:24 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms. >> Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM. > COBOL semantics probably don't have anything to do with it as other > COBOL compilers support it. > I would suggest it's an implementation detail with how z/OS COBOL > allocates LOCAL-STORAGE. > > >> >> -- >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of >> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - >> Weirdware >> >> *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 >>>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
