Prev: New draft of COBOL revision available
Next: External Stored Proc Limitations?
From: William M. Klein on 7 Jan 2008 12:05
As I raised the issue in a previous note/thread, I thought a few within CLC
might want to read what I ended up sending to J4 about the question of
reaffirming the ANSI version (not ISO version) of the 2002 COBOL Standard. It
is available at:
http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0015.doc

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


From: Clark F Morris on 7 Jan 2008 20:47
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:05:40 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>As I raised the issue in a previous note/thread, I thought a few within CLC
>might want to read what I ended up sending to J4 about the question of
>reaffirming the ANSI version (not ISO version) of the 2002 COBOL Standard. It
>is available at:
> http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0015.doc
It would be interesting to see the IBM response to Bill's letter since
I know they have SHARE requirements for both implementing the standard
and specific features in it. I still think that a standards process
that involved the users and gave them a reason to use bleeding edge
features would be an improvement on the current floating development
in a vacuum.
From: Robert Jones on 10 Jan 2008 14:23
On Jan 8, 1:47 am, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:05:40 GMT, "William M. Klein"
>
> <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> >As I raised the issue in a previous note/thread, I thought a few within CLC
> >might want to read what I ended up sending to J4 about the question of
> >reaffirming the ANSI version (not ISO version) of the 2002 COBOL Standard. It
> >is available at:
> > http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0015.doc
>
> It would be interesting to see the IBM response to Bill's letter since
> I know they have SHARE requirements for both implementing the standard
> and specific features in it. I still think that a standards process
> that involved the users and gave them a reason to use bleeding edge
> features would be an improvement on the current floating development
> in a vacuum.

Any user who wants to be involved can ask to participate via their
National standards body, as far as I can make out they are pleased to
have people join in, though a lot of the work may seem fairly mundane,
cheking other peoples' proposals and fault finding for example. It
also requires a pretty good knowledge of the contents of the standard,
which is not written as a user manual and contains a lot of features
that the average programmer has probably never heard of, let alone
used.

Robert
From: William M. Klein on 10 Jan 2008 16:53
Actually, Clark - I think you are mistaken.

IBM has received SHARE (and other requirements) related to the ISO 2002
Standard. As far as I know, they have heard NOTHING about the ANSI one. The
entire point of my paper is that there is little good (and possibly harm) in
reaffirming the ANSI version of the already reaffirmed ISO 2002 Standard.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4dl5o3dn79eehvcfj3a00i2633vv4b7oam(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:05:40 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>As I raised the issue in a previous note/thread, I thought a few within CLC
>>might want to read what I ended up sending to J4 about the question of
>>reaffirming the ANSI version (not ISO version) of the 2002 COBOL Standard. It
>>is available at:
>> http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0015.doc
> It would be interesting to see the IBM response to Bill's letter since
> I know they have SHARE requirements for both implementing the standard
> and specific features in it. I still think that a standards process
> that involved the users and gave them a reason to use bleeding edge
> features would be an improvement on the current floating development
> in a vacuum.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: New draft of COBOL revision available
Next: External Stored Proc Limitations?