Re: gnubol: STODGY vs GNUVEAU

[Randall Bart <Barticus@att.net>]

At 08:59 AM 11/13/99 , RKRayhawk@aol.com wrote:

>Concerning alternate (mis-)spellings like
><<
>  ln PERFORM PREFORM
> >>
>
>Some of that _could_ be handled by the lexer.

The lexer could read in a token translation table.  If the user doesn't 
want the feature, they use a null table (or a default table for 
SPACES=>SPACE, etc).

>My thought is that we need the equivalent of conditional compilation
>directives in the lexer specification and the parser specification.

>I am thinking that we need to make the absence of the
>alternative/creative/experimental features very auditable.

>I am thinking that someone says lets down load the GNU COBOL compiler but not
>bring down the new stuff. And an informed tech says we'll get it, and just
>set the parms to gen the conservative stuff, and the decision makes says no.

Most compilers I have used included extensions, but also included a compile 
time option to issue warnings or errors for these extensions.  This has 
always been acceptable.

>This is a technical challenge. I think that the GNU COBOL compiler project
>has a different success criteria for acceptable build components, in contrast
>to other GNU compilers. We cannot just be as flexible as possible.

We have to be able to diagnose extensions.  This is not hard to do if it's 
a design feature from the beginning.

--
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.