[Top][All Lists]

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

[open-cobol-list] Re: get/set runtime environment information

From: Bill Klein
Subject: [open-cobol-list] Re: get/set runtime environment information
Date: Thu May 25 14:00:05 2006

Roger (et al),
   *If* this IS a feature that you think is "so important" that it
should still 
be added to the 2008 Standard, you should

A) contact your "national standards body" to make certain this is
conveyed from 
them to WG4 (and to J4).  To find out information on "your" national
body, see:

B) Contact the Micro Focus representative to J4 (as listed in the latest
list) who was ALSO the original author of the proposal (still waiting a 
revision).  His email address is listed at:
   huib.klink <at>
For long time viewers of comp.lang.cobol, this name may well be

   As Richard (I think) indicated, this "features" does tend to assume
operating system WITH such things as "environment variables".
Certainly, these 
are always (I think) available in POSIX-conforming environments, but it
surprise me that IF such a feature were added to a future Standard that
it would 
be in the "processor depenendent" category (but I don't know that would

Bill Klein
 wmklein <at>
"Chuck Stevens" <address@hidden> wrote in message 
> "William M. Klein" <address@hidden> wrote in message 
> news:address@hidden
>> Chuck,
>>   to be more specific ...
>> What was done with the paper
>>    "05-0029- Environment variables"
>> Available online at:
>> -- 
>> Bill Klein
>> wmklein <at>
> The Environment Variables and Command Line Variables features were in
> "include if feasible in the time frame" category from WG4.
> 05-0029, Environment Variables, was presented and discussed at Meeting
> (7-11 February 2005; see the final minutes for that meeting,
J4/05-0073). At 
> that meeting J4 suggested some refinements.
> The related document, Command Line variables (assigned J4 document
> 05-0030), has not yet been completed or received by J4 for review.
> The revisions to 05-0029 were not made available for Meeting #251 (as
far as I 
> know they're still not available), and 05-0030 hasn't been made
available for 
> review at all (it may not even exist yet).
> The features were dropped from consideration for the 2008 draft
> because it was not feasible to include them in the time frame required
> that revision given the state of their specifications.
> Both features are considered desirable, and both features are included
in the 
> list of candidate features for a future revision.  But the details
> weren't ready in time for this one.
>    -Chuck Stevens

reply via email to

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