>>You are confused again...we have always had messages and codes for COBOL >>run-time messages, > >With real explanations, or with the claim that they are self documenting?
With explanations for the intended audience, system programmers. For the compiler messages, we felt that was for a different audience, an audience who was writing and compiling COBOL programs. We felt that that audience was also using a Language Reference Manual, so they had the listing, the line of code that was in error, an explanation of what was wrong, and the manual to read about it. We felt that the LRM was the documentation. We have gotten enough complaints that we are considering putting out a messages manual for compiler messages. For 90% of messages the explanation will say to read the Language Reference Manual about the statement pointed to by the error message in question. The only other option we see is for us to copy the information from the LRM into a message manual. Are we missing a 3rd option? (Remember that compiler messages are almost all about syntax errors in COBOL programs, and the syntax is described in the LRM.) Would a message manual that tells you to read another manual be helpful? Or maybe we just need a messages manual to explain how to solve syntax errors in COBOL programs, as we do in the COBOL Programming Guide section titled Correcting errors in your source program? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
