| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-29, 6:55 pm |
|
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:13db2kuoft2919a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5jla0pF4srfU1@mid.individual.net...
> [snip]
> techniques
>
> Forward reference is a misnomer. It is an indirect reference;
> to a literal (constant-entry), or to a data-description-entry
> or record-description (typedef and object of SAME AS
> clause).
I referred to it as: "That is simply an illegal (circular) indirect
reference."
However, whatever you call it has no bearing on what it does.
The issue here is with functionality, not nomenclature.
>Many common languages use indirect backward
> references; but I am not aware of any that permit indirect
> forward references. The latter being the case, whence do
> these "established techniques" come?
I can't believe this, Rick. I never said there were techniques for dealing
with "indirect forward references"; on the contrary I suggested that such
would be illegal due to circularity. As usual, you are much more interested
in having an argument, or parading your book learning, than solving a
problem.
Does the standard require that circular references be permitted or does it
not?
How would you address this?
I already made my suggestion.
>
> Furthermore, some uses of the SAME AS and TYPE
> clauses and constant-entries will result in chains of indirect
> references. Resolving these chains is analogous to creating
> an indented list of parts from a product structure file (or table).
> Relatively easy to do when the components and assemblies
> are known (indirect backward references); but not so easy
> when they are not yet known (indirect forward reference).
>
So you won't be writing a 2002 compliant compiler any time soon, then?
> In other words, it is possible to accommodate indirect
> forward references; but doing so adds an unprecedented
> level of complexity to COBOL compiler development
> with, in my opinion, no significant benefit.
Well, that's your opinion and perfectly valid as such.
Others may disagree.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|