RE: [open-cobol-list] Re. Small Cobol changes for MVS compatibility

[Roger While]

Hi Bill,
Agreed, however, I was trying to make clear the position as
regards the trailing space in the pseudo-text which IS unambiguous.
(At least to my interpretation) (Ans is fully clear with respect to the 
example
 from Mr. Korn)

Interesting, quoting the paragraph GR10(a) fully -
"The leftmost library text-word that is not a separator comma or a 
separator semicolon is the first text-word
used for comparison. Any text-word or space preceding this text-word is 
copied into the resultant text.
Starting with the first text-word for comparison and first pseudo-text-1, 
text-1, word-1, literal-3, or
partial-word-1 that was specified in the REPLACING phrase, the entire 
REPLACING phrase operand that
precedes the reserved word BY is compared to an equivalent number of 
contiguous library text-words."

In particular, the second sentence. What can be "preceding" when the first 
sentence talks about
"leftmost" ?

Roger

At 16:24 15.11.2004 -0600, you wrote:
> Roger,
>   You couldn't be MORE mistaken about what the '02 Standard says (and 
> this
> IS consistent with the '85 Standard) when you say,
>
> "If you say ==<space>TEXT<space>== BY
> > ==<space>TEXT2<space>== , then 2002 states that
> > this is EXACTLY what will be searched for"
>
> See: GR10(a) on page 34 which states, (in part),
>
> "The leftmost library text-word that is not a separator comma or a 
> separator
> semicolon is the first text-word used for comparison."
>
> In other words,
>
>    ==text-word==
>
> DOES match
>
>   ==, . text-word==
>
> and also matches
>
>   ==<space>text-word==
>
> (all spaces and non-spaces and equivalent separators) are treated as
> IRRELEVANT before the first text-word.
>
> It *is* true that the '85 Standard (and the '02) Standard BOTH state that
> when a match is found, that you MUST put all of pseudo-text-2 (the stuff
> after the BY) into the resulting text.
>
> This is why I indicated that *if* the current implementation is NOT 
> placing
> spaces in the resulting text (when they appear in pseudo-text-2) that is
> NON-conforming.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden On
> > Behalf Of Roger While
> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:59 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: [open-cobol-list] Re. Small Cobol changes for MVS
> > compatibility
> >
> > David, I'm fairly OK with 1 and 2.
> > But definitely not with 3.
> > I was always mystified by the way compilers jumped through
> > hoops to supposedly adhere to the nonsense 85 standard.
> > In the 2002 standard, things are absolutely clear.
> > If you say ==<space>TEXT<space>== BY
> > ==<space>TEXT2<space>== , then 2002 states that
> > this is EXACTLY what will be searched for and EXACTLY what
> > will be replaced.
> > The only extra processing is :
> > "Each occurrence of a separator comma, semicolon, or space in
> > pseudo-text-1
> > or in the library text is
> > considered to be a single space. Each sequence of one or more space
> > separators is considered to be
> > a single space."
> >
> > In fact, because of the 85 confusion, MicroFocus says this :
> > "(ANS85) If certain conventions are followed in library text,
> > parts of
> > names, for example the prefix portion of data-names, can be
> > changed with
> > the REPLACING phrase. To use this type of "partial word
> > replacement" the
> > portion of the words to be modified must be enclosed in one of the
> > following ways:
> > In pairs of left and right parentheses. For example, (ABC)
> > Within colons. For example :XYZ: "
> >
> > So, regardless of what Open Cobol does or does not do, I would change
> > your copy statements to be unambiguous. In my opinion,
> > putting spaces at
> > the end of
> > pseudo-text and expecting the compiler to know what you mean
> > is asking for
> > trouble.
> > Take out the trailing space at the end of pseudo-text-1 and
> > -2, and then
> > you have a prog that
> > should compile with any standard (theoretically) .
> >
> > Roger