[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: [open-cobol-list] mvs cobol namespace

From: David Korn
Subject: Re: RE: [open-cobol-list] mvs cobol namespace
Date: Thu Feb 5 14:38:46 2004

> OK, what am I missing?
You are missing the fact that
         Call "literal"
gets converts in C to
and that therefore only [A-Za-z0-9_] are legal in C and in addition $
is legal in gcc and many other C compilers.  Since the program needs
to compile, literal needs to be transformed into this set.
> Why not do *NO* conversion for a 
>    Call "literal"
> statement and raise an "ON EXCEPTION" if the subprogram isn't "found" when
> you use the name exactly AS entered in the program?
> Yes it is true that different compilers in different operating systems *do*
> some conversion, but why CONTINUE this "confusion" when you aren't dealing
> with those environments.
> FYI,  the ISO 2002 Standard introduces an "IS EXTERNAL" phrase to allow one
> to specify a "known to the OS" name.  If programmers really WANT to specify
> an "odd" name, then that is what they should be using.
> Micro Focus and CA-Realia are workstation "tools" intended to allow
> mainframe programmers to DEVELOP on the Workstation, but run production on
> an IBM mainframe.  Therefore, they *must* provide mainframe OS "emulation"
> but I don't see that being the target of Open-COBOL.
> Therefore, my STRONG recommendation is do *NO( conversion for CALL "literal"
> statements (or COPY "literal" statements).  USE what the programmer enters.
> If they want something different, then they should change their source code.
> P.S.  For example, Micro Focus supports 
>     Call X"hex-literal"
> statements.  If you do "conversions" for those, you will have REAL problems.

David Korn

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]