gnubol: IBM flags nested conditionals as error (RC=8) but recovers OK

["J & C Migrations, Pty." <migrate@tiac.net>]

At 10:41 AM 12/6/99 EST, RKRayhawk@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/6/99 8:29:16 AM EST, TIMJOSLING@prodigy.net writes:
	<snip>

>Which looks vaguely like the general idea I suggest that even when we 
>find outright errors in code we should flip commutable error switches but 
>still hand semantics as much as we can so that it can do it's checking too 
>(to get as much from each compile as possible). 

May I concur?   A compiler has *two* primary functions by which its value
is measured: translation and diagnostics.  As a development tool, a
compiler that quits without sufficient error recovery is of little value.

Regarding the proper location for the recovery, or the appropriate
"binding" of the [NOT] SIZE ERROR phrase, I would recommend following the
repair to COBOL offered by the current Committee Draft, which binds it to
the nearest arithmetic lacking END-verb.  As far as I know, the ANSI & ISO
COBOL committees have agreed to forge ahead with consensus/majority
decisions taking effect in the next standard, rather than forced as
interpretations of the 1985/1989/1992 standard, but those decisions do
point the future way of COBOL.

Regards,
Jonathan

------------------------------------------------------------
J & C Migrations, Pty.          
566 Centre Street               http://www.jcmigrations.com
Newton, MA 02458-2325           Tel. +1 (617) 916-5114
USA                             Fax. +1 (617) 916-5113
E-mail: mailto:jb@jcmigrations.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.