In
<a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e628645c29...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se>,
on 02/18/2013
at 02:48 PM, Thomas Berg <thomas.b...@swedbank.se> said:
>Do you imply that these features is promoting/helping obfuscating ?
It's not the features that are bad in those instances, but rather the
syntax for requesting the features; that syntax is about as far from
the purported English-like character of COBOL as you can get.
>I can't immediately see that (except maybe COMPUTATIONAL-n).
If you're just learning COBOL, the magic numbers 77 and 88 totally
obscure the intent; I consider them to be worse than COMPUTATIONAL-n
in that regard.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
