Re: gnubol: Anyone actually working on Cobol

["David L. Nicol" <david@kasey.umkc.edu>]

Boris Kortiak wrote:

> The idea would be to have a basic nucleus of the COBOL compiler (and here I mean it in its broadest sense) which would take care of all the strict interpretation of the standard.  Additional functionality (or extensions) should be able to be added through some simple mechanism which would allow development of the additional functions to go on separately and be integrated in a fairly seamless manner.


> 
> Boris Kortiak wrote:
> > Justin,
> > I suspect that while it may be a pain, it would turn out to be the best way in the long run.  Plus it would allow for more "individual" COBOL grammers to exist.  If I want a verb PREFORM to mean the same thing as PERFORM (cause I have real trouble spelling <g>), with a modular approach I could easily (well easier than rewriting the whole thing) add it in.
> <snip>


With a dynamic sort of architechture that loads verbs in
from a directory full of "verb definition files" which describe
in a system-internal language the meaning of the verb, allowing
for variant spellings could be as easy as 

ln PERFORM PREFORM


Although portability would be maintained better by preprepreprocessing
with

sed s/PREFORM/PERFORM/g



______________________________________________________________
                      David Nicol 816.235.1187 nicold@umkc.edu
      End Daylight Savings Time in the year 2000 --just say NO

--
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.