Re: gnubol: problem 9

[RKRayhawk@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/27/99 1:41:34 AM EST, tej@melbpc.org.au writes:

<< 
 INSPECT a tallying x for all y ZZZ.
 INSPECT a tallying X for all y ZZZ for leading z.
 
 So ZZZ could be something else you are counting or something you
 are putting the next count into. I think.
 
 Take out the magic tokens and see the conflicts, if you have
 bison which I think you said you do.
  >>

Well I trust you are correct. I have bison and I can not believe how quiet it 
is when it scans your rules. Positively erie!


But my COBOL manual does not say that you can have a list where your example 
implies that you think you can:

  INSPECT a tallying x for all y ZZZ.
 
Seems to be not right to me. Am I wrong? Does the standard say otherwise?

We can get 
  INSPECT a tallying x for all y x2 for all y2 x3 for all y3

but that is just two data references on different phrases.  Generally, a rule 
like

lhs :  INSPECT data_ref tallying  tally_data_ref_recurse

tally_data_ref_recurse :
   tally_data_ref %prec PREC_HIGHER_THAN_DATA_REF
 | tally_data_ref_recurse tally_data_ref %prec PREC_HIGHER_THAN_DATA_REF

tally_data_ref :
 data_ref for all data_ref 

should get the phrases to reduce quick enough.  This is over simplification, 
as I have not sketched in the BEFORE/AFTER phrases.  But my only point is 
that I do not think the ALL/LEADING/CHARACTER phrase sports data_reference 
lists; but only single items.

The same for other phrases of this statement. The phrases can repeat but the 
data items look singular to me. 

Best Wishes,
Bob Rayhawk
RKRayhawk@aol.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.