Re: gnubol: Alphanumeric-edited to Alphanumeric - elementary MOVE

[Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>]

I like option 1. This gives the user the ability to get checking
if they want it (in CD1.7), without imposing a huge overhead in
all cases. As I understand it, incompatible data has undefined
results, which is correct IMO.

Tim Josling

"William M. Klein" wrote:

> 1. If we (I?) go with explicitly making this "incompatible data", then vendors
> (current and future) can do whatever they want with such code (so it would be
> guaranteed to be "compatible" with their '85 implementations) - but then they
> would be "required" to check such fields if EC-DATA-INCOMPATIBLE is being
> checked.
> 2. If I say that editing symbols (for alphanumeric-edited and national-edited)
> items are "ignored" when the field is a "sending operand" - then programs
> would be "required" to continue execution, but I don't think that programmers
> will be able to rely on their data.
> 3. If I make this situation totally "implementor defined" - little portability
> will be provided, but this might be "compatible" with previous Standards.
> Any comments? suggestions?



--
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.