[Cobolforgcc-devel] Re: [Tiny-cobol-users] Common COBOL library

[<bur...@ya...>]

Hi

I would think this would be ideal for alot of users,
myself I am trying to convert hp3000 cobol programs to
tc , which has worked, where I have hit a wall is
converting the db calls to work with MYsql, I will
have to start using perl/php/c++ to write some
wrappers, to gain more acceptance of the package it
would be so useful to have these libraries to hand ,
other than that the conversion has worked fine, I have
had to work on some post 85 functions which are not
available on the tc but apart from that it works
great.

Peter Burgess

 --- Bernard Giroud <bg...@fr...> wrote: > Hi all,
> 
> Good news and bad ones!
> On the good news front, I'm very pleased of the
> final
> ratification of COBOL 2002 by the ISO.
> On the bad ones, we (Opensource Cobol compiler
> projects developers) have still a long way to go,
> just to implement the 85/89 standard.
> 
> I think it is about time to try to work a little
> more
> together, following the tracks of David Essex and
> Keisuke Nishida.
> 
> So many things need still to be done (not in any
> order),
> like :
> - other file support systems (Inodb, RMS, ...)
> - decent sort library and interface
> - Sql preprocessor for ODBC and MySQL
> - COBOL prettyprinter (like indent for C)
> - integration into GDB, DDD and IDE's
> ...
> 
> So I propose the following (I think Tim did agree
> on the principle): design a common libcob, and
> if necessary, migrate the corresponding compilers.
> 
> Just to start the discussion, I see two main
> approaches:
> either take an existing one, "donate" it to the
> cobol
> project, and upgrade to the specs,
> or just start from scratch again.
> 
> No surprise, I'm in favour of the first; but which
> one?
> Well, it might depend on the specs we adopt.
> So I think the best start is the specs for:
> - the way the cobol field is accessed from the
> routine
> - a descriptor for a cobol field
> - a descriptor for a cobol file
> 
> Just to start the ball rolling, I will send this
> message
> to the compilers mailing list, but I think the
> discussion
> should be carried on in the cobol-util ML.
> 
> First of all, Keisuke, what was the reason behind
> having a descriptor with two pointers, one for
> the attr desc and the other for the data, except
> economy of paramters for the routines and
> possible factorisation of field_desc ?
> 
> Hoping to concentrate forces ...
> 
> Bernard Giroud
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Tin...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tiny-cobol-users 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com