Re: gnubol: How do we parse this language, anyway?

[RKRayhawk@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/8/99 10:12:34 AM EST,
Davyd Ondrejko ,david.ondrejko@safelite.com writes:

<<  Nested IF statements are no problem (although
 I'm not sure how deep the nesting can go; at least 36, since that's
 where I stopped trying >>

Thanks for the generous effort. The clarity of the specific tests is great.


Davyd also writes:

<<

> Or more dramatically
> 
>    READ ....
>        AT END
>           ADD 1 to crazy-eof-counter
>              ON SIZE ERROR
>                 DISPLAY 'we must have been here a large number of times'
> .

This generates ... error ...
>>
(I did a lot of snipping here).

That is a fascinating baseline, because in the new world of NOT conditionals 
you really would 
expect a two level encoding, such as the following (emphasis the NOT)

    READ ....
        ....
        NOT AT END
           ADD 1 to normal-ole-record-counter
              ON SIZE ERROR
                 DISPLAY 'data field design did not expect so many records'
 * note EOS implicit scope terminator follows
   .
 *

This is the kind of thing I mean in the discussion of the COBOL '85 compilers 
when I say two 
deep on different families of conditionals seem down right ordinary. Your 
genuine surprise when the older compiler presented you with an error message 
is certainly noteworthy.

Thanks Again!

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.