Re: gnubol: Anyone actually working on Cobol

[Randall Bart <Barticus@att.net>]

At 02:51 PM 11/6/99 , Glen Colbert wrote:

>While I probably missed it, I have not seen a single executable created as a
>result of any of the lexers or parsers that started out as Cobol source
>code.

All the parsers and lexers in the world won't produce a single executable.

>Cobol is simply an i/o and memory management tool.

???

>   It's about time to
>deliver a release 1.0 that complies with some early version of Cobol.  How
>about just implementing Cobol 73 with whatever quirks and idiosyncrasies
>develop and arguing about parsing puzzles on the release 2 team?

There's no Cobol-73, I assume you mean Cobol-74.  Implementing a complete 
high level Cobol-74 would involve most of the work in implementing 
Cobol-85, especially if it's prepared for the demands of Cobol-85 and 
Cobol-20XX.  It would be possible to implement low level Cobol-74, but that 
would not satisfy many users.

Cobol is big.  There's a lot of work involved, and there's no way to avoid it.

--
RB |\  Randall Bart
aa |/  Barticus@usa.net 818-985-3259 Barticus@att.net
nr |\  8321 Burnet Av #1, North Hills, CA 91343
dt ||\
a   |/ Y2K website:    http://users.aol.com/PanicYr00
l   |\
l   |/ DOT-HS-808-065     I Love You    MS^7=6/28/107


--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.