Re: gnubol: COBOL and C

[Davyd Ondrejko <david.ondrejko@safelite.com>]

> As a conversions expert, allow me to recommend against the use of USAGE
> COMP as in the example below.  COMP is known to be equivalent to USAGE
> BINARY on MVS & VM, USAGE PACKED-DECIMAL on Wang VS, and USAGE DISPLAY
> in some other implementations.  COMP and the COMP-n variations are
> either Extensions or specifically Implementor Defined, and should be
> avoided as the plague (except if you want your employers/clients to
> eventually need my services :-)

That's all well and good (and probably quite correct), but I don't think
that there's a choice.  We are not concerned with how programs *should*
be written but instead how they *are* written.  A great many people use
the COMP and COMP-3 clauses, and any compiler developed as a result of
the present project should be able to compile them and produce similar
results.

-- 
David R. Ondrejko - EDI/Referral - Safelite Glass Co.
 Mathematician by training - Programmer by trade - Philosopher by nature
 Genius by genetics - Atheist by conviction - Hedonist by desire!

--
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.