Re: Qualification is matter of COBOL Theology was Re: Dumb Question Time: Qualificati

I wish I could do that as well.

But there are those in the COBOL community that insist that it look like
English -- regardless of the 4 - errr 5 -- decades of proof that English
speaking ability is not corelated with programming skill.

Don't give up hope -- they gave use COMPUTE, maybe they will see the
light...

In article <2p7g3oFhvqasU2@uni-berlin.de>,
"Clark F. Morris, Jr." <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote:

> Peter E. C. Dashwood wrote: 
>
> I have wanted to be able to code A-FILE.FIELD-1 instead of FIELD-1 OF
> A-FILE for at least 20 - 30 years.  This would extend to include
> A-FILE.B-RECORD.C-GROUP.FIELD-1 instead of
> FIELD-1 OF C-GROUP OF B-RECORD OF A-FILE.  The notation is consistent
> with other languages and unambiguous.  The only case for it not working
> is if a site uses pure numeric section and paragraph names, something
> still allowed even if it makes no sense.  Since I have never used
> qualified paragraph names, I am willing to live with using the "." means
> of qualification only for data division items.  COPY REPLACING LEADING
> is an improvement that allows us to easily reuse the descriptions where
> the field names have a common prefix but at the expense of not being
> able to use MOVE CORRESPONDING and ADD CORRESPONDING.
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>