New "base document" available

For those of you (if any <G> ) who care about the progress of the COBOL Stand
ard
revision work, a new "base document" (WD 1.7) is available (in zipped format
)
online at:

http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/std.zip

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

I care.  Thanks!
Is there anything that shows the differences between this version and the
prior version?
Just wondering.

Frank

n 3/29/2007 at 3:55 PM, in message
<lBWOh.137091$dB6.130725@fe08.news.easynews.com>, William M.
Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> For those of you (if any <G> ) who care about the progress of the COBOL
> Standard
> revision work, a new "base document" (WD 1.7) is available (in zipped
> format)
> online at:
>
>      http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/std.zip

>>> On 3/29/2007 at 3:55 PM, in message
<lBWOh.137091$dB6.130725@fe08.news.easynews.com>, William M.
Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> For those of you (if any <G> ) who care about the progress of the COBOL
> Standard
> revision work, a new "base document" (WD 1.7) is available (in zipped
> format)
> online at:
>
>      http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/std.zip

Hmm, interesting, the standards guys can now time travel into the future.
That documented is dated 2007-05-29.
:-)

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lBWOh.137091$dB6.130725@fe08.news.easynews.com...
> For those of you (if any <G> ) who care about the progress of the COBOL
Standard
> revision work, a new "base document" (WD 1.7) is available (in zipped
format)
> online at:
>
>      http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/std.zip

Thank You!

I asked about the May date and  was told that it was just a typo.  However, 
it
wasn't felt "important enough" to reissue the document.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:460BE3D8.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com... 
> <lBWOh.137091$dB6.130725@fe08.news.easynews.com>, William M.
> Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote: 
>
> Hmm, interesting, the standards guys can now time travel into the future.
> That documented is dated 2007-05-29.
> :-)
>

I am not certain how useful this will be, if you want to see what has change
d
(and sort-of why) from WD 1.6, check out:

http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0055.doc

and

http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0056.doc

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:460BE31D.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
>I care.  Thanks!
> Is there anything that shows the differences between this version and the
> prior version?
> Just wondering.
>
> Frank
>
> n 3/29/2007 at 3:55 PM, in message
> <lBWOh.137091$dB6.130725@fe08.news.easynews.com>, William M.
> Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote: 

Might I also suggest once again to the J4 that some consideration
be done about retrieving command line parameters.
How a about a FUNCTION COMMAND-LINE?

Roger

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:X_%Oh.138844$dB6.50049@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>I am not certain how useful this will be, if you want to see what has
>changed (and sort-of why) from WD 1.6, check out:
>
>  http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0055.doc
>
> and
>
> http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0056.doc
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
> news:460BE31D.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com... 
>
>

You can make such a suggestion, but NOT via this newsgroup <G>.

I would say that most implementations that CARE about this have already
implemented the X/Open solution (via ACCEPT).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
news:euj1eo$p6o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Might I also suggest once again to the J4 that some consideration
> be done about retrieving command line parameters.
> How a about a FUNCTION COMMAND-LINE?
>
> Roger
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:X_%Oh.138844$dB6.50049@fe08.news.easynews.com... 
>
>

Maybe I formulated this incorrectly.
How to go about retrieving command line parameters?
This is something that has been around for a long time.
No one from the standards committee has seen fit to address
this (Yes, I know from previous posts what was said)
Still, a FUNCTION COMMAND-LINE would resolve these

Roger

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:v_8Ph.181468$Wn6.47181@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> You can make such a suggestion, but NOT via this newsgroup <G>.
>
> I would say that most implementations that CARE about this have already
> implemented the X/Open solution (via ACCEPT).
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
> news:euj1eo$p6o$03$1@news.t-online.com... 
>
>

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:130qevi9f1ebsd8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
> news:euj78t$5g8$03$1@news.t-online.com... 
>
> Format 1 ACCEPT and DISPLAY statements using
> mneumonic-name. The implementor defines the
> mnuemonic-names and their behavior with the ACCEPT
> and DISPLAY statements. For X/Open, the names are:
>
> ARGUMENT-NUMBER
> ARGUMENT-VALUE
>
> The following works for me
> (using Micro Focus COBOL 3.2.24).
> -----
>       identification division.
>       program-id. cmd-line.
>       data division.
>       working-storage section.
>       01 argc pic 99 value 0.
>       01 this-program-name pic x(80).
>       01 filler.
>           02 argv occurs 0 to 99 times
>               depending on argc pic x(80).
>       01 x binary pic 9(4) value 0.
>       procedure division.
>       begin.
>           accept argc from argument-number
>           display 0 upon argument-number
>           accept this-program-name from argument-value
>           display this-program-name
>           perform varying x from 1 by 1
>                   until x > argc
>               display x upon argument-number
>               accept argv (x) from argument-value
>               display argv (x)
>           end-perform
>           stop run.
> -----
> 
>
> Not true! The "Candidate features for a future revision" list
> has the following entry:
>
> "22. 02-0160 - Command line & environment variables
> (scan of 93-1045) (Schepman/Woerner): J4 - 43,
> WG4 - investigate;  see also 05-0029 - Environment
> variables (Klink)"
>
> The problem may be that there are not enough people
> on J4 to investigate the changes required and to write
> those changes for the standard.

I wonder why people aren't flocking to be on J4... and how many people does
it take to document a simple function that returns a collection?

If the current round of J4 endeavour is simply going to repeat the mistakes
of past J4 endeavours, what's the point? If the excellent people who ARE on
J4 (and I include you and Bill here) are simply going to run into the same
old management and protocol issues, wading through molasses to get a date
changed on a document when a typist could do it in 5 minutes, as if nothing
was learned in the past, then why bother?

Hardly surprising that many of the brightest and best aren't queuing up for
seats on the committee...
> 
>
> Because other means are already in use, it seems more
> likely that using a function would confuse; not resolve.
>

Not that I really care, but I STRONGLY disagree with that position. Roger is
right; a simple function would make the whole thing a lot simpler across all
platforms. The "other means" are clumsy, ugly and need a lot more time and
thought. The function could return the arguments and the number of them in a
single collection. (In fact, the collection automatically holds the number
of them as one of its attributes.) How hard is it to devise the syntax for a
simple function that returns a collection? Why should it be such an onerous
thing to do?  It could be easily implemented on any platform, mainframe or
Client/Server, so there is unlikely to be resistance from vendors.

It's like when SEARCH was added to the language... there were "other means"
already in place and it took quite some time for people to start using
SEARCH (or STRING, EVALUATE etc.)  - some people still never use these "new
fangled" constructs, but they are a minority... Anyone who came to COBOL in
the 1990s takes these things as read, and the Language is richer for them.

The moribundity and lollygagging that characterised previous J4 committees
seems to be alive and well...

OK, I don't want to restart the flame wars that happened last time (or throw
the baby out with the bath water; there are some dedicated people wasting
their time on J4), so that will be my final statement on this, and I'll keep
my opinions to myself in future. (Unless, of course, I'm asked, or the
nonsense gets to a level that is more than flesh and blood can stand...:-))

Pete.