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

[Michael McKernan <mck@tivoli.mv.com>]

  Bill> Question: Am I missing something or has consensus been
  Bill> reached that allowing nested conditionals where the Standard
  Bill> requires imperatives (as "valid") has been rejected and that
  Bill> the consensus is now that these should cause an error?

  Bill> If so, is the ongoing discussion JUST asking where to "bind"
  Bill> the erroneous "open conditionals" - in order to allow
  Bill> continued compilation?  If there is some other OPEN question,
  Bill> can someone tell me what it is?

  Bill> If this is the only open question, then I would PREFER that
  Bill> the "bind" be to the inner statement (consistent with the
  Bill> explicit rules in the draft - and what Micro Focus does as an
  Bill> extension - and what IBM does with their "error" condition).
  Bill> On the other hand, I don't care a WHOLE lot about what we do
  Bill> with "errors" - other than NOT produce executable code.

  Bill> Am I still missing something?

  Bill> Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


I think we're close enough.  I'm tired of it.  Generating code or not
is just a matter of assigning a severity level, so let's decide that
when we have a code generator.

Mike



--
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.