Code Comments
Programming Forum and web based access to our favorite programming groups... On 17.11.04
wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in joe_zitzelberger-7FEA09.09434917112004@knology.usenetserver.com
about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
JZ> P way:
JZ>
JZ> PERFORM 1000-STUFF
JZ> ...
JZ> blah
JZ> blah
JZ> IF SOME-COND-TRUE
JZ> blah
JZ> blah
JZ> END-IF
JZ> EXIT.
This last EXIT is superflouus, and even more, illegal at that place
for the COBOL syntax ("The EXIT statement shall appear in a sentence
by itself that shall be the only sentence in the paragraph" (ISO/IEC
1989:2002, 14.8.13.2: Syntax rules), and it "serves only to enable the
user to assign a procedure-name" -- loosely called a label -- "to a
given point in a procedure division. Such an EXIT statement has not
other effect on the compilation or execution." (14.8.13.3 General
rules).
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Man stattete ihm sehr heißen, schon etwas verbrannten Dank ab. -G.C.Lichtenb
erg
Post Follow-up to this messageIn article <9L0YbqquflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:
> . On 17.11.04
> wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in joe_zitzelberger-7FEA09.09434917112004@knology.usenetserver.com
> about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
>
>
> JZ> P way:
> JZ>
> JZ> PERFORM 1000-STUFF
> JZ> ...
> JZ> blah
> JZ> blah
> JZ> IF SOME-COND-TRUE
> JZ> blah
> JZ> blah
> JZ> END-IF
> JZ> EXIT.
>
> This last EXIT is superflouus, and even more, illegal at that place
> for the COBOL syntax ("The EXIT statement shall appear in a sentence
> by itself that shall be the only sentence in the paragraph" (ISO/IEC
> 1989:2002, 14.8.13.2: Syntax rules), and it "serves only to enable the
> user to assign a procedure-name" -- loosely called a label -- "to a
> given point in a procedure division. Such an EXIT statement has not
> other effect on the compilation or execution." (14.8.13.3 General
> rules).
Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers
because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator -- it woudl take:
Exec CICS
something
End-Exec
Post Follow-up to this message.. On 18.11.04 wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger) on /COMP/LANG/COBOL in joe_zitzelberger-0B76E0.02303118112004@knology.usenetserver.com about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 JZ> Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers do they allow this non-standard behaviour? JZ> because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator -- one bug to cancel out another bug ... Yours, Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de /--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten -- Seine Bücher waren alle sehr nett, sie hatten auch sonst wenig zu tun. -G.C. Lichtenberg
Post Follow-up to this messageIn article <9L4dr189flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>, l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote: > . On 18.11.04 > wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger) > on /COMP/LANG/COBOL > in joe_zitzelberger-0B76E0.02303118112004@knology.usenetserver.com > about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 > > > JZ> Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers > > do they allow this non-standard behaviour? Yes, absolutely. But I never checked to see if it raises the 'vendor extension' flag. > JZ> because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator -- > > one bug to cancel out another bug ... I could, and should, switch over to "Continue." to correct the problem. I never new it wasn't allowed by the standard. I'm a mostly IBM sort.
Post Follow-up to this messageIn article <9L4dr189flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>, l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote: > . On 18.11.04 > wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger) > on /COMP/LANG/COBOL > in joe_zitzelberger-0B76E0.02303118112004@knology.usenetserver.com > about Re: Para1 THRU Para2 > > > JZ> Sorry about that. I use "EXIT." instead of "." on IBMs compilers > > do they allow this non-standard behaviour? Yes, absolutely. But I never checked to see if it raises the 'vendor extension' flag. > JZ> because of a nasty bug in their CICS v4.10 translator -- > > one bug to cancel out another bug ... I could, and should, switch over to "Continue." to correct the problem. I never new it wasn't allowed by the standard. I'm a mostly IBM sort.
Post Follow-up to this messagePowered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2006 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.