Cobol - Re: Para1 THRU Para2

Author

Re: Para1 THRU Para2

Lueko Willms

2004-11-17, 8:55 pm

.. On 17.11.04
wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in joe_zitzelberger-7FEA09.09434917112004@knology.usenetserver.com
about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

JZ> P way:
JZ>
JZ> PERFORM 1000-STUFF
JZ> ...
JZ> blah
JZ> blah
JZ> IF SOME-COND-TRUE
JZ> blah
JZ> blah
JZ> END-IF
JZ> EXIT.

This last EXIT is superflouus, and even more, illegal at that place
for the COBOL syntax ("The EXIT statement shall appear in a sentence
by itself that shall be the only sentence in the paragraph" (ISO/IEC
1989:2002, 14.8.13.2: Syntax rules), and it "serves only to enable the
user to assign a procedure-name" -- loosely called a label -- "to a
given point in a procedure division. Such an EXIT statement has not
other effect on the compilation or execution." (14.8.13.3 General
rules).

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Man stattete ihm sehr heißen, schon etwas verbrannten Dank ab. -G.C.Lichtenberg

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

In article <9L0YbqquflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:

> . On 17.11.04
> wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in joe_zitzelberger-7FEA09.09434917112004@knology.usenetserver.com
> about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
>
>
> JZ> P way:
> JZ>
> JZ> PERFORM 1000-STUFF
> JZ> ...
> JZ> blah
> JZ> blah
> JZ> IF SOME-COND-TRUE
> JZ> blah
> JZ> blah
> JZ> END-IF
> JZ> EXIT.
>
> This last EXIT is superflouus, and even more, illegal at that place
> for the COBOL syntax ("The EXIT statement shall appear in a sentence
> by itself that shall be the only sentence in the paragraph" (ISO/IEC
> 1989:2002, 14.8.13.2: Syntax rules), and it "serves only to enable the
> user to assign a procedure-name" -- loosely called a label -- "to a
> given point in a procedure division. Such an EXIT statement has not
> other effect on the compilation or execution." (14.8.13.3 General
> rules).

Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers
because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator -- it woudl take:

Exec CICS
something
End-Exec

Lueko Willms

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

.. On 18.11.04
wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in joe_zitzelberger-0B76E0.02303118112004@knology.usenetserver.com
about Re: Para1 THRU Para2

JZ> Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers

do they allow this non-standard behaviour?

JZ> because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator --

one bug to cancel out another bug ...

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Seine Bücher waren alle sehr nett, sie hatten auch sonst wenig zu tun. -G.C.Lichtenberg

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <9L4dr189flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:

> . On 18.11.04
> wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in joe_zitzelberger-0B76E0.02303118112004@knology.usenetserver.com
> about Re: Para1 THRU Para2
>
>
> JZ> Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers
>
> do they allow this non-standard behaviour?

Yes, absolutely. But I never checked to see if it raises the 'vendor
extension' flag.

> JZ> because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator --
>
> one bug to cancel out another bug ...

I could, and should, switch over to "Continue." to correct the problem.

I never new it wasn't allowed by the standard. I'm a mostly IBM sort.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-22, 8:55 am

Sponsored Links