[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnubol: STODGY vs GNUVEAU

To: gnu-cobol@lusars.net
Subject: Re: gnubol: STODGY vs GNUVEAU
From: Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:00:05 +1000
Delivered-To: gnu-cobol-outgoing@wallace.lusars.net
Organization: Melbourne PC Users Group
References: <4.2.1.10.19991114224621.00ad4720@postoffice.att.net>
Reply-To: gnu-cobol@lusars.net
Sender: owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net



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

So the standard says. Some kinds of extensions are hard to diagnose, but
others (eg based on extra keywords) are easy.

Tim Josling



--
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.

References:
- Re: gnubol: STODGY vs GNUVEAU
  - From: Randall Bart <Barticus@att.net>

Prev by Date: Re: gnubol: DIVISION/SECTION headers.
Next by Date: Re: gnubol: Re: Cost of Backtracking
Prev by thread: Re: gnubol: STODGY vs GNUVEAU
Next by thread: gnubol: Indexed file processing
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread