Home > Archive > Cobol > September 2007 > No paragraphs in "standard" COBOL (was: EXIT SECTION/PARAGRAPH
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 |
No paragraphs in "standard" COBOL (was: EXIT SECTION/PARAGRAPH
|
|
| William M. Klein 2007-09-10, 7:55 am |
| If a compiler claims to conform to the '02 Standard (at least for this) - or has
such an extension, a "conforming" compiler need not have all procedure division
code within NAMED paragraphs.
See substantive change 90 on page 828 of the '02 Standard. It states,
"90) Paragraph-name. A paragraph-name is not required at the beginning of the
procedure division or a section."
I believe (but won't swear to it), that MF has had this as an extension for many
releases.
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189376823.322007.290810@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sep 9, 2:22 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> MF Cobol doesn't give an error because "it's not in a paragraph", if
> it does give an error it is for some other reason.
>
>
> The standard for Cobol requires that 'falling off the end of the code'
> is equivalent to a STOP RUN (or EXIT PROGRAM) and always has done.
> Whether Bill actually said that is unsupported hearsay.
>
>
| |
| Richard 2007-09-10, 7:55 am |
| On Sep 10, 6:00 pm, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com>
wrote:
> If a compiler claims to conform to the '02 Standard (at least for this) - or has
> such an extension, a "conforming" compiler need not have all procedure division
> code within NAMED paragraphs.
>
> See substantive change 90 on page 828 of the '02 Standard. It states,
>
> "90) Paragraph-name. A paragraph-name is not required at the beginning of the
> procedure division or a section."
>
> I believe (but won't swear to it), that MF has had this as an extension for many
> releases.
EXIT PARAGRAPH is an extension prior to '02.
| |
| William M. Klein 2007-09-10, 6:55 pm |
| Sorry that I wasn't clear. I am POSITIVE that MF introduced EXIT PARAGRAPH as
an extension before the '02 Standard was passed. What I am not as positive of,
is that I *think* that MF had n extension allowing for procedure division code
to exist before/without a paragraph (or section) header.
My note was replying to the thread comments,
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189409036.404027.305410@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
> On Sep 10, 6:00 pm, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> EXIT PARAGRAPH is an extension prior to '02.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|