Nested Conditionals (was RE: gnubol: Braiding #1 #2 #3

["William M. Klein" <wmklein@ix.netcom.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net
> [mailto:owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net]On Behalf Of Tim Josling
 <snip>
>
> 2. I agree with your interpretation of the standard. However given the
> MF
> extension, would you object to allowing nested conditionals provided
> that any
> extension is flagged, and that standard conforming code works as per the
> standard. Obviously you have the data and also feel strongly about this
> :-)
  <much VERY useful snippage>

Given my choice, this is one place that I really would prefer sticking to the
Standard.  From my "old days" working at Micro Focus, I do remember a BUNCH
of user-reported problems that they had with their extension (for nested
conditionals).  (They also had problems with their extension allowing
END-PERFORM to be omitted for inline performs.)  I don't remember the details
at the moment - and probably shouldn't "reveal" them anyway - but I do
remember that they did occur.

Personally, I just don't see the "harm" in requiring users to enter that
"magical" scope terminator to change their conditional to an imperative -
when they want to add nesting.

ON THE OTHER HAND, as I am not one of the people who will be (can be with the
"holes" in my technical knowledge) "building" the actual parser, if someone
convinces me that it is MUCH CLEANER to allow for the nested conditionals,
then I will "shut up" (well knowing me, make that "be a little more quiet"
<G>)


Bill Klein
  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


--
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.