Next Draft (FINAL CD) available of "next" COBOL revision
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 15 Jul 2010 10:05 In article <i1n3hr$s5t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Kerry Liles <kerry.removethisandoneperiod.liles(a)gmail.com> wrote: ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:i1lj5t$13d$3(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <8a70l2Fn6aU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <976q36lh0pnpgkmgjar9ftn6mjpj0vnfkv(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:28:32 -0500, "Bill Klein" >>>>> <wmklein(a)noreply.ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> > >>>> I don't write compilers, Mr Morris, not have I much communication with >>>> those who do... but my guess would include something like 'backwards >>>> compatability' and 'there is a GO TO but not a RETURN FROM'. >>>> >>> >>>Er... doesn't EXIT PERFORM serve that function? :-) >> >> It might were a THROUGH coded, Mr Dashwood... but e'er-so-many folks >> consider that anathema. > >Might be interesting if, upon encountering an EXIT PERFORM, the compiler >would just {exit the perform} - regardless of how the PERFORM was invoked... >remarkably like English, eh wot? In the context of a 'RETURN FROM'... let's see, an inline PERFORM so EXITed would continue with the first executable statement following the PERFORM; despite the ease with which examples could be constructed otherwise it would most likely be the next physically sequential statement. For a PERFORMed paragraph, though, there's the wee bit of bother about 'which PERFORM in the program invoked execution of this code'... and it hasn't gotten any easier since Lazy Programmers decided to take advantage of technological advances and code backwards-referring PERFORMs... an' don't git me started on what them kids're callin' 'music' nowadays, neither! DD |