Re: COBOL compiler
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 05:42, bob parker wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:46, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > I particularly like the way it deletes the most significant figure(s)
> > > when you get an overflow in a numeric field. Or so it did last time I had
> > > anything to do with it.
> >
> > Must have been a compiler option or implementation decision. Our
> > programs machine checked on overflow.
>
> Or maybe I'm just showing my age! - This was in the 1970's.
That reminds me of a funny story from my IBM DOS/VSE COBOL days in
the late 80s.
One of the senior systems analysts/programmers (he was in his 40s;
this was a small shop, so there was lots of duty overlap) was ex-
plaining to me that the reason I was having this problem was because
of a bug in the COBOL compiler. The Vice President/Analyst/BAL-guru
is walking by and overhears the explanation. He busts out laughing,
saying that that bug was a Burroughs COBOL bug, and had been fixed
in the mid 70s...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
I can't make you have an abortion, but you can *make* me pay
child support for 18 years? However, if I want the child (and
all the expenses that entails) for the *rest*of*my*life*, and
you don't want it for 9 months, tough luck???
Reply to: