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

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.[/col
or]

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 followe
d ibm's lead.

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

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.

In article <d4623df2-7866-4856-9ddd-a9738f5a028b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.co
m>,
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

On 14 Mar, 09:39, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <d4623df2-7866-4856-9ddd-a9738f5a0...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.=[/color
]
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.

> >As a member of the Elect, I have rarely seen Assembler listings of 

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

In article <9fd31068-be1b-46d5-bed8-532210cfb349@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m>,
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