Home > Archive > Cobol > October 2004 > User vs Instrinsic Functions (was: String Functions in MF
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
User vs Instrinsic Functions (was: String Functions in MF
|
|
| William M. Klein 2004-10-02, 8:55 am |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cjf9g5$dnr$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> ... which is precisely why I suggested this methodology be in a user-defined
> Function whose arguments and behavior are well-described ... ;-)
>
> Someone could also propose a standard Function TRIM, but in similar
> circumstances J4 has been reluctant to specify a *standard* function where a
> *user-defined* one would serve as well. The only cases I can think of where
> functions of such straightforward logic as this have been proposed have been
> those in which the standardization of the output format was deemed desirable
> (as for example, for the proposed COMBINED-DATETIME function as part of the
> ISO Date/Time proposal). I don't want to get in the way of a Wily
> Entrepreneur marketing a library of such functions to the COBOL user
> community, and I think Function TRIM (however named) would fall into the
> category of potentially-marketable functions.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
Point of clarification (possibly just personal opinion),
The distinction that Chuck is making is a POST-2002 Standard distinction.
Although the 2002 Standard introduced "user-defined functions", the following
INTRINSIC funcitons were introduced at the same time. These are just the ones
that I think would have been easy to create "user-defined" functions for - but
instead intrinsic ones were provided:
DATE-TO-YYYYMMDD
DAY-TO-YYYYDDD
E
EXP
EXP10
FRACTION-PART
NUMVAL-F
PI
SIGN
YEAR-TO-YYYY
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-10-02, 8:55 am |
| Yes, I agree, and presuming the *prior* presence of user-defined intrinsic
functions I'd personally have been uncomfortable with adding some (though
not necessarily all) of these.
-Chuck Stevens
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:YbG6d.2339590$6p.396746@news.easynews.com...
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:cjf9g5$dnr$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
user-defined[color=darkred]
where a[color=darkred]
where[color=darkred]
been[color=darkred]
desirable[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
> Point of clarification (possibly just personal opinion),
>
> The distinction that Chuck is making is a POST-2002 Standard distinction.
> Although the 2002 Standard introduced "user-defined functions", the
following
> INTRINSIC funcitons were introduced at the same time. These are just the
ones
> that I think would have been easy to create "user-defined" functions for -
but
> instead intrinsic ones were provided:
>
> DATE-TO-YYYYMMDD
> DAY-TO-YYYYDDD
> E
> EXP
> EXP10
> FRACTION-PART
> NUMVAL-F
> PI
> SIGN
> YEAR-TO-YYYY
>
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
|