I need a new compiler...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 16:36 In article <qkidk4hk4fke5q9pld8iuklcnf0uc090cc(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:16:40 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >>>language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >>>replaced "graveyard". >> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th >>century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. >> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: 1761' and >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a derivation from >>Old Church Slavic. >> >>Pretty neat act of 'replacement', eh? > >Marketing rarely starts from a vacuum. Last I looked, neither do brooms. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Dec 2008 16:48 On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:51 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>This is one of the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source: it is >>frequently incorrect. > >Correct or not, this is why sources are cited and URLS given. Good reply. A cited Wikipedia entry gives us a place to start. An uncited entry is just rumor. (Sometimes that's all we have - "I read an article in my local newspaper last summer..."). But with a citation, we can much better evaluate. If it's Wikipedia, we can even upgrade the quality of the source, should we have a better source. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 15 Dec 2008 17:15 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com>, > Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >> language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >> replaced "graveyard". > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th > century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: > 1761' and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a > derivation from Old Church Slavic. > > Pretty neat act of 'replacement', eh? > > DD Interesting. The English spelling of "cemetery" is "cemetary". The dead centre of town. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 19:09 In article <6qo384Fdm7afU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com>, >> Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >>> language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >>> replaced "graveyard". >> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th >> century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. >> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: >> 1761' and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a >> derivation from Old Church Slavic. >> > >Interesting. > >The English spelling of "cemetery" is "cemetary". E'en more interesting... according to my copy of the OED (two-volume 20th printing, January, 1981) Vol I, page 365, page 217, col i, the words, in order are: Cementum Cemeterial Cemetery .... and for the last there are given a variety of forms, from 'cymytery' to... 'cemetary'. No primary listing for 'cemetary' (not even a 'see 'cemetery'') can I find. DD
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 19:27
In article <e0kdk4pq6b46660uq2b7shvoc7lrs3ljm4(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:51 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>This is one of the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source: it is >>>frequently incorrect. >> >>Correct or not, this is why sources are cited and URLS given. > >Good reply. Shucks, I'd blush... were I able to remember how. >A cited Wikipedia entry gives us a place to start. An >uncited entry is just rumor. E'en more so, Mr Brazee... it give something *everyone* can look at and read and comment and supply definitions and parsings and pickings of nits, a Common Source, as it were. It may be only a Wikipaedia entry, true... but it certainly is something other than 'Why, I used to work with Ritchie, hisself, an' I recall he came a-stormin' inta work one day, talkin' 'bout this dream he had where a snake took its tail into its mouth and began rolling, started this whole new theory of the structure of benzene... no, wait, maybe that was Kekule.' It may well be that the ISO or IEEE or ANSI or whatever standard does not require a version of C to have access to lower levels of memory... but if all versions have capabilities for such access, and many advantages are taken in many versions of such access... well, something about walking and quacking like a duck comes to mind. DD |