Cobol - What Standard? (was: Right Justify Alphanumeric Field

Author

What Standard? (was: Right Justify Alphanumeric Field

William M. Klein

2006-03-19, 6:55 pm

"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam@email.com> wrote in message
news:32pq125rg920vuapqeq5biut1hcqt9mhdn@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:31:28 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net>
> wrote:
>
<snip>>
> I was originally stating that it was not portable code accross 85
> compilers (which you flagging "with ANS85 flagging." seemed to suggest
> would work with all 85 compliant compilers.
>
> My second reply to you was just to highlight this fact. nothing else.
>
> Frederico Fonseca
> ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com

Interesting question: What does "85 Standard compiler" mean today?

1) "Third Standard COBOL" was amended twice. As far as ANSI (and ISO) go, there
was only "amended Third Standard COBOL" - as of 1991 and later.

2) The Intrinsic Functions Module was an OPTIONAL module in Amended Third
Standard COBOL. HOWEVER, it was a required module in the (US only) FIPS
Standard.

3) As far as ANSI and ISO go, there is no longer any recognized "85 Standard"
(or Amended Third Standard COBOL). The only CURRENTLY recognized Standard is
the '02 Standard. (For which there is a published and approved ISO, not ANSI,
Technical Report - which is NOT the same thing as an "amendment").

4) Referring to an "85 Standard compiler" has as much meaning today as referring
to a '74 or '68 Standard compiler. It has whatever meaning the vendor gives it,
as it has no "Standard" (or portable) definition.

5) During the life time of the "'85 Standard" - one needed to tell which level
(subset) of the Standard was conformed to AS well as which optional modules were
included. The only "truly portable" source code would conform to the minimum
subset with no optional modules. I don't personally remember ANY compiler that
was that limited, but there might have been one. (I know there were some
intermediate subset compilers with few or no optional modules).

P.S. I know that Micro Focus documents what both
FLAG"ANS85"
and
FLAGSTD

used for flagging.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Kelly Bert Manning

2006-03-21, 3:55 am

"William M. Klein" (wmklein@nospam.netcom.com) writes:
>
> 4) Referring to an "85 Standard compiler" has as much meaning today as referring
> to a '74 or '68 Standard compiler. It has whatever meaning the vendor gives it,
> as it has no "Standard" (or portable) definition.

All those versions could be confusing, particularly to comp sci undergrads
with hearing deficits or attention deficits.

I remember coming across
Cobalt-60
as one response when marking mid-terms for a prof who had asked students
to name 3 high level languages.

Sponsored Links