RE: gnubol: The many different types of numbering systems used in Cobol.

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

> -----Original Message-----

> >
>
> We have a bunch of V's.
> The real problem we had was Micro Focus expected every COMP number
> to by BYTE BOUND.
> Therefore the number 973 would take 2 bytes.
>

Not true for Micro Focus COBOL.  The IBM-COMP compiler directive determines
whether one-byte or two-byte COMP fields are the smallest allowed (and
similarly whether 3-byte fields are available or not).

>If we had a record  containing two
> variables
> 88745 and 973 it would look like this 0887450973 in hex on the
> Micro Focus PC.
> Whilst the same example in the V would represent 88745973  with no
> wasted digits.
> The PC COBOL forces you to be BYTE aware.

This is true, i.e. Micro Focus does require COMP fields to be on byte
boundaries (and will zero pad to make it so).

>

>
> What I hope for is a haven in the GNU project, such that we don't
> have to worry about
> STANDARDS
> anymore.  STANDARDS were a failure!  What we need is availability
> of a supported
> version of COBOL
> which never removes sytax/verbage but rather add's to it.  Extends it..

Actually, that is pretty much what Micro Focus does do.  It almost NEVER
removes support for old stuff (even bugs).  Compare the OLD-NEXT-SENTENCE
directive which provides "compatibility" with a bug (on VERY early compilers)
that treated NEXT SENTENCE as a CONTINUE.

>


--
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.