[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [open-cobol-list] open-cobol : full 85 support : bounty ...

From: Brian Tiffin
Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] open-cobol : full 85 support : bounty ...
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 03:04:56 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/32.0 SeaMonkey/2.29.1

Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:23:01AM -0500, Brian Tiffin wrote:
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

i am initiating a personal project to improve conditions in rural india
by effecting social change via technology.
for the same, i have chosen to go ahead with cobol-85 due to it's
impressive record-oriented data manipulation abilities.

it being a self-funded effort, i can't afford to go for big iron stuff
>from ibm, etc.
hence, i would prefer to go with open-cobol running under a highly
modified linux system.

i have come to realize that open-cobol does not yet have full support
for the cobol-85 standard.
who be the right person to communicate with regarding raising a bounty
to bring in full cobol-85 support to open-cobol?
What parts have you found missing, Mayuresh?  It's pretty close, no?

Post messages on SourceForge at

umm, maybe?

You've seen the "make test" results from the tests/cobol85
subdirectory?  400 and some programs over 9700 and some passes of
the NIST cobol85 test suite.  It's gotta be close to full already,
no? It might not take much to get it to where you'd like to see it,
brian, thanks for writing in.
i have been informed by vince coen about the full cobol-85 compliance in
v2+ of gnucobol.
i am really thankful for your efforts, if you have an
wishlist, please share, would like to have some small way to express my

If you are serious, Simon could use a copy of the ISO/IEC 1989:2014 specification, when it is ratified.

The Published spec is listed at 198 Swiss Francs on But it's not Official yet, just Published. So, umm, we should wait. But if we do raise any bounties, one of the first things on the fiscal list should be, a copy of the spec, held in trust for the project, perhaps by the Free Software Foundation. In my fan boy opinion. Umm, assuming it's not a case of, ISO/IEC 1989:2014 thru 2015.



best regards,


reply via email to

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