RE: [open-cobol-list] Bug Report

[Roger While]

Fixed in CVS,
DATE-MODIFIED is ignored.

And for the tarball :
www.sim-basis.de/open-cobol-0.33.tar.gz

He-he. Isn't Cobol a lovely language ?  .-)

Should I tear my hair out nw before I take on the
ACCEPT/DISPLAY/SCREEN section or what :-)

Roger

At 15:33 06.10.2005 -0500, you wrote:
> The answer to this one is actually pretty funny (and it really IS a bug).
>
> DATE-MODIFIED is *not* a valid paragraph name for any IBM (or other 
> compiler
> that I know of).
>
> HOWEVER, (and here comes the funny part).  IBM (and several other 
> compilers)
> allow for a "comment-entry" to be in either the A-margin or 
> B-Margin.  (The
> '85 Standard isn't clear to me as to whether this is an extension or not.)
>
> Therefore, given the construct:
>
>        AUTHOR.        MRK S.
>        DATE-WRITTEN.  NOV 07, 2002.
>        DATE-MODIFIED. NOV 21, 2002.
>
> the "DATE-MODIFIED. ..." text is (on IBM and several other compilers)
> treated as a "comment-entry" portion of the (valid and conforming)
> DATE-WRITTEN. paragraph.  You could just as well have coded:
>
>        AUTHOR.        MRK S.
>        DATE-WRITTEN.  NOV 07, 2002.
>        Now-is-the-time. For all good men to come to the aid of their 
> party>
>
> and it would compile.  For documentation on continuation of 
> comment-entries,
> see the '85 Standard, page VI-6, SR(1).
>
> P.S. A common use of this "feature" is IBM code like the following:
>
>         AUTHOR.   MRK S.
>      REMARKS.  OS/VS COBOL allowed for a REMARKS paragraph but
>                VS COBOL II and later do not.  However, this works because
>                it is actually a part of the AUTHOR paragraph.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden On
> > Behalf Of Robert Sherry
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:16 PM
> > To: 'John R. Culleton'; address@hidden
> > Cc: 'Roger While'
> > Subject: RE: [open-cobol-list] Bug Report
> >
> > John,
> >
> >     You are right. I meant to say: DATE-MODIFIED. Sorry. In
> > any event, I
> > believe it should work in MVS compatible mode. Do you
> > disagree with that?
> >
> > Bob Sherry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden On
> > Behalf Of John R.
> > Culleton
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:46 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Cc: Robert Sherry; 'Roger While'
> > Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] Bug Report
> >
> > On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:34 pm, Robert Sherry wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > >      While DATE-WRITTEN is not part of standard COBOL it is
> > part of IBM
> > MVS
> > > COBOL. Therefore it should work with std=mvs.conf. By the
> > way, it use to
> > > work in Open COBOL.
> > >
> > > Bob Sherry
> >
> > DATE-MODIFIED IS THE PROBLEM!
> > --
> > John Culleton