Re: [open-cobol-list] USAGE POINTER

[Bernard Giroud]

Sorry ! My mistake ! I got confused with a flavor of the SET
statement which is a VMS extension.

So, pls, forget everything I said (at least regarding USAGE POINTER ;-( )

Bernard Giroud
Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) SA
----- Original Message -----
From: "William M. Klein" <address@hidden>
To: "'Bernard Giroud'" <address@hidden>; "'Keisuke
Nishida'" <address@hidden>;
<address@hidden>
Cc: "'David Korn'" <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: [open-cobol-list] USAGE POINTER


>
> *GETTING* the address of a subordinate data-item is (and should be)
allowed
> by all the implementations that I know of.
>
> *CHANGING* the address of a subordinate item is "strange" (and I can't
even
> figure out what SHOULD happen).
>
> Consider:
>
>  01  Group-1.
>       05   Elem1  Pic  XX.
>       05   Elem2  Pic  XX.
>       05   Elem3  Pic  Xx.
> ...
>     Set Address of Elem2 to Some-Pointer-Item.
>
> What happens to the address of Elem3?  What happens on a Move to Group-1?
>
> I think that the entire "current" ('85 and 2002) Standard definitions of
> "group items" is built on the REQUIREMENT that all the storage of an
> 01-level (or 77-level) be in "contiguous" storage.  Any change to this may
> break "bunches" of the rest of the COBOL language.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden On
> > Behalf Of Bernard Giroud
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:07 AM
> > To: William M. Klein; 'Keisuke Nishida';
> > address@hidden
> > Cc: 'David Korn'
> > Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] USAGE POINTER
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William M. Klein" <address@hidden>
> > To: "'Keisuke Nishida'" <address@hidden>;
> > <address@hidden>
> > Cc: "'David Korn'" <address@hidden>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:27 AM
> > Subject: RE: [open-cobol-list] USAGE POINTER
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A couple things to think about for this extension.
> > >
> > > (...SNIP...)
> > >
> > > 2)  SET ADDRESS OF must be followed by an 01 or 77-level item (not a
> > > subordinate item)
> >
> > It is a shame to have arbitrary limitations from the language; I agree
> > that on some architectures the address of a subordinate item will
> > not be aligned, but if you WANT to pass a byte address, that should
> > be allowed by the language.
> >
> > >
> > > (...SNIP...)
> >
> >
> > Bernard Giroud
> > Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) SA



********************************************************************************
This e-mail contains confidential information or information belonging 
to the Credit Lyonnais Group entity sending it and is intended solely 
for the addressees. Any views expressed in this message are those of 
the individual sender and its contents do not constitute a commitment 
by Credit Lyonnais unless confirmed by letter or fax. The unauthorised 
disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either whole or partial) of 
this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited. E-mails are 
susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed.
Internet communications are not secured and therefore Credit Lyonnais 
shall not be liable for this e-mail if modified or falsified. If you 
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it 
immediately from your system and notify the sender of the wrong 
delivery and the mail deletion.
********************************************************************************