On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:17:15 +0100, Vince Coen wrote: > > > >Go to files -> gnu-cobol -> 2.0 and grab the latest nightly file > > > I'm puzzled. If GNU COBOL and IBM COBOL disagree about the syntactic > validity of a construct, shouldn't this be resolved by referring to the > specification of the language rather than by quibbling about whether > the GNU COBOL is up to date? > Absolutely correct! But I'm not shelling out US$ 265 for the document just to satisfy my curiosity. Actually, I _assume_ that IBM is most likely correct. But that the standard itself is "bad" in this regards. http://www.techstreet.com/products/1878409 If I write my code so that GNU COBOL accepts it, then IBM Enterprise COBOL will also accept it. And, again to me personally, I find the GNU "restriction" to be "good" because the "bouncing around" of levels confuses me. And I need people to use KISS. > > If the specification is ambiguous, an RCF or something equivalent > should be in order. > > -- gil > > -- Schrodinger's backup: The condition of any backup is unknown until a restore is attempted. Yoda of Borg, we are. Futile, resistance is, yes. Assimilated, you will be. He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
