Author: Bill Woodger
Subject: Re: Reply to: COBOL Version 6.1
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:13 am (GMT 5.5)
They are from the 2002, superseded, now 2014 COBOL Standard.
I think it's an attempt to make COBOL more "recognisable" with regard to other languages.
As you may have guessed, I don't think they are at all a good idea. "GO TO" gets a bad reputation, then we introduce a "secret GO TO", where it is not necessarily clear when it will go, or where it will arrive, and consider it a "structured" construct, so all is OK...
IBM asks people what they want added to Enterprise COBOL. Presumably someone (probably who doesn't know COBOL) thought this was a good idea to add...
Subject: Re: Reply to: COBOL Version 6.1
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:13 am (GMT 5.5)
| Gnanas N wrote: |
| I'm wondering why IBM has introduced these constructs recently. Didn't they expect these are really needed as an enhancement to the language? |
They are from the 2002, superseded, now 2014 COBOL Standard.
I think it's an attempt to make COBOL more "recognisable" with regard to other languages.
As you may have guessed, I don't think they are at all a good idea. "GO TO" gets a bad reputation, then we introduce a "secret GO TO", where it is not necessarily clear when it will go, or where it will arrive, and consider it a "structured" construct, so all is OK...
IBM asks people what they want added to Enterprise COBOL. Presumably someone (probably who doesn't know COBOL) thought this was a good idea to add...