Cobol - Re: (Non-Standard) ODO's (by William M. Klein wmklein@nospam.netcom.com)

Author

Re: (Non-Standard) ODO's (by William M. Klein wmklein@nospam.netcom.com)

Robert

2008-03-13, 6:56 pm

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:19:43 -0500, "SeaSideSam" <SeaSideSam@TheBeach> wrote:

>bill. ibm cobol pre-85 allocated the max occurs number at compile time.

[Sarcasm mode on]

There you go. It's definitive. IBM wrote the Cobol standard, didn't they?

> i read this somewhere

Now that's what you call a CITATION. "I read this somewhere"

>and i saw the evidence in an assembler listing that we used to have access to.

Further evidence. Only The Elect have access to assembler listings.

> i believe that ibm cobol 85 did the same.

A third source.

>i never understood ibm's implementation of this feature.

Mere mortals gaze in awe.

>and since it didn't do 'dynamic' allocation i never used it.

Only Satanists and Communists do 'dynamic' allocation, if there even is such a thing.

> i did some programming on a univac machine and their cobol pre-85 compiler followed ibm's lead.

Of course. All right thinkers follow IBM's lead. It's the holy writ.

Alistair

2008-03-13, 6:56 pm

On 13 Mar, 14:31, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:

>
>
> Of course. All right thinkers follow IBM's lead. It's the holy writ.

I'm glad that you have seen the light. As I work on an IBM Cobol
(don't ask me which one) I can confirm that the compiler allocated the
maximum record size possible.

As a member of the Elect, I have rarely seen Assembler listings of
Cobol code (twice I think in 30 years) and believe that feature was
more usually restricted to the Gods (aka systems programmers) although
they usually worked in the only language worth using, Assembler.

2008-03-14, 7:55 am

In article <d4623df2-7866-4856-9ddd-a9738f5a028b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>As a member of the Elect, I have rarely seen Assembler listings of
>Cobol code (twice I think in 30 years) and believe that feature was
>more usually restricted to the Gods (aka systems programmers) although
>they usually worked in the only language worth using, Assembler.

Mr Maclean, my memory is, admittedly, porous but I recall a few times
(more than twice) that I've posted such listings - or appropriate
fragments thereof - to the group.

Yew want... more?

DD

Alistair

2008-03-14, 6:57 pm

On 14 Mar, 09:39, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <d4623df2-7866-4856-9ddd-a9738f5a0...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.=
com>,
>
> Alistair =A0<alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Mr Maclean, my memory is, admittedly, porous but I recall a few times
> (more than twice) that I've posted such listings - or appropriate
> fragments thereof - to the group.
>
> Yew want... more?
>
> DD

Are you claiming to be one of the Gods? Beware of those who would
worship you.

Michael Mattias

2008-03-14, 6:57 pm

> >As a member of the Elect, I have rarely seen Assembler listings of[color=darkred]

One need not be a "Member of the Elect" unless my memory is playing tricks
(again)....

I seem to recall with the IBM mainframe COBOL compilers getting an assembler
listing for a compiled program required nothing more than specifying the
correct compile option.

MCM

2008-03-15, 3:56 am

In article <9fd31068-be1b-46d5-bed8-532210cfb349@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14 Mar, 09:39, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
><d4623df2-7866-4856-9ddd-a9738f5a0...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>Are you claiming to be one of the Gods?

Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, Mr Maclean; you
stated that you had rarely seen PMAPs... errrrr, LISTs and I pointed out
that I recall having posted such things to the group.

>Beware of those who would
>worship you.

'I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me' is a
tenet of Marxism, of the Groucho sort.

DD

Sponsored Links