GROUP-USAGE (was Alternative COBOL "telco" source program

"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40b9c05d.136840610@news.optonline.net...
<snip>
> Group names are implicitly pic x. It's an error to initialize
bit/binary/packed
> variables with F0 (EBCDIC) or 30 (ASCII). It's common for compilers to
disallow
> that value while permitting 'move zeroes to MySwitches'. Go figure.
>

For those interested, the issue of group items versus the elementary items b
elow
them was addressed in the 2002 ISO Standard (for *some* usages) - specifical
ly
for BIT and NATIONAL groups.  For example, the following is valid 2002
conforming source code:

01  My-switchest Group-Usage Bit.
05   Switch1  Pic 1 Bit.
05   Switch2-3  Pic 1(2) Bit.

This lets you work with "my-switches" AS IF it were an elementary USAGE BIT
item.

***

If your "vendor of choice" supports BIT (or NATIONAL) items, check with them
 on
when/if they plan on providing this new data division clause.

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

ZippyDooDah to do with PL/I!
(Followup-To set to comp.lang.cobol)

----
Jeff

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:xhquc.15820$Tn6.4796@n
ewsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:40b9c05d.136840610@news.optonline.net...
> <snip> 
> bit/binary/packed 
> disallow 
>
> For those interested, the issue of group items versus the elementary items
 below
> them was addressed in the 2002 ISO Standard (for *some* usages) - specific
ally
> for BIT and NATIONAL groups.  For example, the following is valid 2002
> conforming source code:
>
> 01  My-switchest Group-Usage Bit.
>     05   Switch1  Pic 1 Bit.
>     05   Switch2-3  Pic 1(2) Bit.
>
> This lets you work with "my-switches" AS IF it were an elementary USAGE BI
T
> item.
>
>    ***
>
> If your "vendor of choice" supports BIT (or NATIONAL) items, check with th
em on
> when/if they plan on providing this new data division clause.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
>  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
>

Jeffery Swagger wrote:

> ZippyDooDah to do with PL/I!
> (Followup-To set to comp.lang.cobol)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....mindspring.com

I guess you just don't see COBOL as a valuable tool...  'tis a pity, as
I don't see PL/1 as an invaluable tool.  (I've also never used it - I
try to make it a practice not to write off a tool until I've established
its uselessness for myself.)


--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i wrote:
> Jeffery Swagger wrote:
> 
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....mindspring.com
>
>
> I guess you just don't see COBOL as a valuable tool...  'tis a pity, as
> I don't see PL/1 as an invaluable tool.  (I've also never used it - I
> try to make it a practice not to write off a tool until I've established
> its uselessness for myself.)
>
>

A little history here helps me love the buttons I have that say,

would you believe PL/2?

At the time the first spec of COBOL WAS about to be addressed by
the IBM OF THAT TIME, a Share Group was formed to do an end run on
COBOL. The chairman of the group, whose name and employer are not
available in my memory these days, called a meeting of several
IBM users  to Cincinnati, OH. Purpose, review the PL/1 draft
specs to see if there were suggestions the invitees wanted to make
to make the spec more like COBOL. Or any other purpose you want
to invent.

The people invited included about five representatives of large
IBM users. There were two of us from Pittsburgh.

Upon arrival, we were given a copy of the spec, and asked to
read it over night, and meet with them the next morning.

Suffice it to say, the objective of the meeting was not met.
There was no effort on our part to cut COBOL off at the pass.

Warren Simmons, New Jersey

LX-i wrote:
> Jeffery Swagger wrote:
> 
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....mindspring.com
>
>
> I guess you just don't see COBOL as a valuable tool...  'tis a pity, as
> I don't see PL/1 as an invaluable tool.

Make that "non-valuable"...


--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Warren Simmons wrote:
> At the time the first spec of COBOL WAS about to be addressed by
> the IBM OF THAT TIME, a Share Group was formed to do an end run on
> COBOL. The chairman of the group, whose name and employer are not
> available in my memory these days, called a meeting of several
> IBM users  to Cincinnati, OH. Purpose, review the PL/1 draft
> specs to see if there were suggestions the invitees wanted to make
> to make the spec more like COBOL. Or any other purpose you want
> to invent.

That story is grossly incompatible with the chronological facts.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
--  Rupert Goodwins

So are wrenches valuable tools. Does that mean we
should discuss proper wrench usage here?

Between David Frank and his egger-oners and now the
COBOLers, the signal-to-noise ratio of this group is
close to zero. Perhaps we should rename it to
comp.lang.talk.about.anything.at.all.EXCEPT.pl1.

----
Jeff

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message news:10bl8bvtih6d88d@corp.supernews.com...[c
olor=darkred]
> LX-i wrote: 
>
> Make that "non-valuable"...
>
>
> --
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
> ~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
> ~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
> ~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
> ~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>[/color]

In article <-8mdnWcoJ9Kipibd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
Jeffery Swagger <jeffos2@adelphia.net> wrote:
>So are wrenches valuable tools. Does that mean we
>should discuss proper wrench usage here?

I can barely control what *I* discuss, let alone others.

If one's comments are in accord with the group's charter then feel free to
post them.

If one's comments are not in accord with the group's charter then one
might realise that posting them might cause one to run afoul of one's
ISP's TOS.

If the newsgroup no longer fulfills one's needs or desires then one might
wish to consider limiting one's participation (both active and passive)
and/or establishing a new newsgroup, either open or moderated, which might
more accurately manifest the aforementioned needs or desires.

These suggestions are, by no means, intended to be a complete listing of
the courses of action which one might wish to take, nor are they intended
to be a complete catalogue of all actions which might be available.

DD

John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Warren Simmons wrote:
> 
>
>
> That story is grossly incompatible with the chronological facts.
Give your chronology. Perhaps I can adjust my story to fit them.

Warren Simmons

Warren Simmons wrote:
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
> 
>
> Give your chronology. Perhaps I can adjust my story to fit them.

The first spec of COBOL was in 1959.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates.  You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton.  "The Ball and the Cross"