Semantics and syntax of the ADD ... GIVING statement

According to my reference, the syntax for the ADD ... GIVING statement is as
follows ([] means optional, + means 1 or more times, <> means "substitute a
value here")

ADD <identifier or literal>+ [ TO ] <identifier or literal>+ GIVING (
<identifier> [ ROUNDED ] )+

Since the TO keyword is optional, is there a semantic difference between:

ADD 10 27 GIVING foo
and
ADD 10 TO 27 GIVING foo
?

Also, is it a requirement that the ADD ... GIVING statement has at least 2
operands? I.e. is the following valid:

ADD 5 GIVING foo

- Oliver

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:05:42 GMT "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:

:>According to my reference, the syntax for the ADD ... GIVING statement is 
as
:>follows ([] means optional, + means 1 or more times, <> means "substitute 
a
:>value here")

:>    ADD <identifier or literal>+ [ TO ] <identifier or literal>+ GIVING (
:><identifier> [ ROUNDED ] )+

:>Since the TO keyword is optional, is there a semantic difference between:

:>    ADD 10 27 GIVING foo
:>and
:>    ADD 10 TO 27 GIVING foo
:>?

I believe that they are identical.

:>Also, is it a requirement that the ADD ... GIVING statement has at least 2
:>operands? I.e. is the following valid:

:>    ADD 5 GIVING foo

I believe that two or more operands are required.

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel


Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

> Since the TO keyword is optional, is there a semantic difference between:
>
>     ADD 10 27 GIVING foo
> and
>     ADD 10 TO 27 GIVING foo
> ?

No.

> Also, is it a requirement that the ADD ... GIVING statement has at least 2
> operands?

Yes.  The syntax diagram requires at least two addends.

>I.e. is the following valid:
>
>     ADD 5 GIVING foo


No.

-Chuck Stevens

> >I.e. is the following valid: 

> No.

It's not just invalid, it's silly. Add 5 and what?  Or to what?

('Add 5 to foo' would be valid, however).

MCM
(Damn, wouldn't it be a hoot to actually get a compiler error message
containing the word 'silly?')

Michael Mattias wrote: 
> 
>
> It's not just invalid, it's silly. Add 5 and what?  Or to what?
>
> ('Add 5 to foo' would be valid, however).
>
> MCM
> (Damn, wouldn't it be a hoot to actually get a compiler error message
> containing the word 'silly?')

I've had CoBOL programs that added 0 to numbers, to make sure that the
resulting number would be in the correct format.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> Michael Mattias wrote: 
>
> I've had CoBOL programs that added 0 to numbers, to make sure that the
> resulting number would be in the correct format.

And I saw one that had:

MOVE X.

I guess for the purpose of getting it out of the way.

"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
news:sIgWe.1310$D42.34@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> (Damn, wouldn't it be a hoot to actually get a compiler error message
> containing the word 'silly?')

Back in my "Compilers" class in university, one of the warning messages
the compiler I wrote produced was "Why would you ever want to do this?" I
forget the exact details, but it was detecting obscure, useless, but legal
syntax.

- Oliver

In article <sIgWe.1310$D42.34@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Mattias <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:

[snip]

>(Damn, wouldn't it be a hoot to actually get a compiler error message
>containing the word 'silly?')

I once mis-coded a SEARCH (or maybe it was a SEARCH ALL) back in the days
of IKFCBL00 so the error read 'EXPECTED WHEN. FOUND 'WHEN'. DELETING UNTIL
NEXT VALID INPUT.'

DD

Oliver,
A couple of "add-on" comments to Chuck's (correct) statement.

1) Looking at BOTH the '85 And '02 Standards, if the identifier-2 / literal-
2
items were in "square brackets" rather than "curli-brackets" this would have
indicated that they were optional.  This distinction is pretty important in
understanding how to read Standard COBOL syntax diagrams.

2) The '85 Standard identifies the (optional) "TO" word in the "giving" form
at
of the ADD statement as a "Substantive change".  Therefore, if you need to
distinguish between '74 and '85 (or later) syntax, this was an EXTENSION if
available in a '74 Standard compiler.  (I know that IBM did allow it, but I
don't know how common it was - as an extension).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dgc3v2$rlq$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> 
>
> No.
> 
>
> Yes.  The syntax diagram requires at least two addends.
> 
>
>
> No.
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>
>

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:EIhWe.20156$R83.14463@fe04.news.easynews.com...

> 2) The '85 Standard identifies the (optional) "TO" word in the "giving"
format
> of the ADD statement as a "Substantive change".  Therefore, if you need to
> distinguish between '74 and '85 (or later) syntax, this was an EXTENSION
if
> available in a '74 Standard compiler.  (I know that IBM did allow it, but
I
> don't know how common it was - as an extension).

I can say with some certainty that the COBOL74 compiler used in the Unisys
MCP environment does not allow both TO and GIVING in the same ADD statement.
I can't address how common this extension was, but I can say that it wasn't
universal.

-Chuck Stevens