RE: gnubol: "Illegal" Next Sentence

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

Combining threads again <G>,

It would be "nice" if you made IS/ARE ZERO/ZEROES/ZEROS level of severity
ALSO "selectable".  I know that IBM and (and Micro Focus when in IBM
compatibility mode) explicitly allow the following (as an extension)

05  NumField Pic 9 Blank when ZEROES.

If NumField ZEROS *> sign test, not equality
  If NunField ZEROES

all of those are cases where the Standard requires ZERO - not ZEROES or
ZEROS.

P.S.  I don't know of any case in the Standard that you need to distinguish
between SPACE and SPACES.

Bill Klein
  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net
> [mailto:owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net]On Behalf Of
> RKRayhawk@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 1:58 PM
> To: gnu-cobol@lusars.net
> Subject: Re: gnubol: "Illegal" Next Sentence
>
>
> In a message dated 12/6/99 8:58:43 PM EST, wmklein@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> << The topic of "illegal" Next Sentence (i.e. a Next Sentence in
> an IF with an
>  END-IF or a SEARCH with an END-SEARCH) is one of those areas that
> gets into
>  "religious wars" among COBOL people. >>
>
> If we resolve these specific situations to a unique error code, and
> externalize the severity level, then we can address the divergent
> code base
> issues with user modifiable error/diagnostic libraries.
>
> Initial gens of these libraries can reflect our best guess of standard
> compliance combined with preferences where allowed.  Alternate
> gens of these
> error/diagnostic libraries might provide certain obvious
> alternatives, like
> most liberal on all dicey issues, and most conservative on those
> issues.  The
> file could be modifiable.
>
> If we project a diagnostic library that say
>   nnnn-W NEXT SENTENCE okay but you are warned
> the user could replace it with simply one change
>   nnnn-E NEXT SENTENCE okay but you are warned
> or they could rescript the text as well, as
>   nnnn-E NEXT SENTENCE not accepted here
>
> We could anticipate some of these areas of special interest in the
> field and
> gloss the text to support easy change of the -W/-E without
> changing the text.
>
> Syntax and semantics only would know the nnnn error number. If
> they need the
> -E and -W, they need to hear it from the error/diagnostics function.
>
> This applies to recoverable situations. Generally syntax should pass
> everything to semantics anyway. But reinforcement generally will lead to
> syntax accessing the -W/-E attribute to tag the construct and to
> commute the
> error condition up in recurse rule structures.
>
> Bob Rayhawk
>
> --
> 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.


--
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.