In 201302201529.55146.jlturr...@centurytel.net, on 02/20/2013
at 03:29 PM, Leslie Turriff jlturr...@centurytel.net said:
All issues with level numbers and usage clauses may be quickly
resolved by looking at the COBOL Language Reference manual
(unless one has an aversion to reading it).
Or,
In
a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e628645d9f...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
on 02/20/2013
at 09:15 AM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se said:
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
No, unlike C, which has only pointers to functions, PL/I has procedure
variables, which may of course be based, pointed to.
A pointer, inclusive of a procedure pointer, should be just a pointer,
no different from a pointer to an aggregate or scalar. What that
pointer points to may of course have
In my previous post
= addr(s) ;
is properly
sp = addr(s) ;
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
On 20 Feb 2013 13:37:40 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Leslie wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2013 02:15:51 Thomas Berg wrote:
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
-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
On Wednesday 20 February 2013 02:15:51 Thomas Berg wrote:
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
...@centurytel.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: Article for the boss: COBOL will outlive us all
On Wednesday 20 February 2013 02:15:51 Thomas Berg wrote:
It's not the features that are bad in those instances, but rather the
syntax
Some things improved when the future of COBOL was wrested from
Codasyl, and some did not. We still have the proliferation of
distinctions among entities that ought not to be distinguished,
distinctions without substantive differences.
The three entities
pointer
procedure-pointer
program-pointer
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:19:16 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
pointer
procedure-pointer
program-pointer
are the poster children for this dubious practice. I know what the
differences among tgherm are, but if pointer had not been misconceived
in the beginning they would have been unnecessary. (There
On Monday 18 February 2013 23:20:46 Ed Gould wrote:
Most places I have worked the use of ALTER was banned in the
standards manual.
Ed
Not this place; my mentor chastised me for using structured methods
(he
didn't understand it). :-P
Leslie
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
För Leslie Turriff
Skickat: den 17 februari 2013 22:54
Till: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Article for the boss: COBOL will outlive us all
On Sunday 17 February 2013 12:47
On Monday 18 February 2013 05:16:45 Thomas Berg wrote:
(I really hate the ALTER command.)
Fortunately I haven't seen this the last +20 years or so. Anf if I had I
would have strangled the programmer... :)
I had one at my last application programming job last year. (They
never
Most places I have worked the use of ALTER was banned in the
standards manual.
Ed
On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Leslie Turriff wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2013 05:16:45 Thomas Berg wrote:
(I really hate the ALTER command.)
Fortunately I haven't seen this the last +20 years or so. Anf if
14 matches
Mail list logo
