| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-08-27, 3:55 am |
| I wish I could do that as well.
But there are those in the COBOL community that insist that it look like
English -- regardless of the 4 - errr 5 -- decades of proof that English
speaking ability is not corelated with programming skill.
Don't give up hope -- they gave use COMPUTE, maybe they will see the
light...
In article <2p7g3oFhvqasU2@uni-berlin.de>,
"Clark F. Morris, Jr." <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote:
> Peter E. C. Dashwood wrote:
>
> I have wanted to be able to code A-FILE.FIELD-1 instead of FIELD-1 OF
> A-FILE for at least 20 - 30 years. This would extend to include
> A-FILE.B-RECORD.C-GROUP.FIELD-1 instead of
> FIELD-1 OF C-GROUP OF B-RECORD OF A-FILE. The notation is consistent
> with other languages and unambiguous. The only case for it not working
> is if a site uses pure numeric section and paragraph names, something
> still allowed even if it makes no sense. Since I have never used
> qualified paragraph names, I am willing to live with using the "." means
> of qualification only for data division items. COPY REPLACING LEADING
> is an improvement that allows us to easily reuse the descriptions where
> the field names have a common prefix but at the expense of not being
> able to use MOVE CORRESPONDING and ADD CORRESPONDING.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|