Re: gnubol: Anyone actually working on Cobol

[Boris <bpkprsnl@erols.com>]

Michael McKernan wrote:

<snip>

> That's easy, Boris.  We just have to change our mission slightly so
> that, instead of COBOL '85, we produce COBOL '61 extended.  If we do
> that, we'll have the DEFINE verb, which permits you to create new
> verbs so long as they can be defined in terms of existing COBOL
> language.  If we'd rather not do that, Tim has expressed his
> intention of providing a macro facility in some advanced version of
> his preprocessor.

The macro facility will probably do the trick.  I just wanted to try to stop the
confusion created by my poor example.

> I was a little taken aback by your original suggestion.  COBOL has
> already reserved a significant fraction of English words in common
> use.  Reserving all the variant spellings doesn't help matters.
> Perhaps the committee should decree that all user defined words must
> be in German.

Hey, I've maintained that; although it was all in Dutch instead of German, but
close enough to cause me confusion <g>.



--
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.