Marty Heyman

I have been reading this thread and wasn't going to jump in. Didn't think I had anything much to add. The roots of all of this go back 50 years. I'm pretty sure REXX was popular by '75. I don't know when ed turned into vi or when emacs popped up but it's all well established as flame-war material by '80 (45 years or 2-3 generations of programmers ago). The academic side of the industry roundly rejected TSO as "interactive" and made Digital Equipment (DEC) and Bell Labs (Unix). And the PC world took...

Simon, Jim is consumed with 3.1 Release work and Bob is up to his neck in the debugger work. It is not off the radar but there are not cycles at the moment. Marty Heyman +1 650-963-7606 (Office) http://www.symas.com/ https://COBOLworx.com/ On Oct 21, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Simon Sobisch sf-mensch@users.sourceforge.net wrote: @mheyman https://sourceforge.net/u/mheyman/ Do you consider to let someone of the COBOLworx team work on a patch for $COBOL_FLAGS? The way to let it handled specified below still...

https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/external-doc/guide/PDFs/gnucobpg-letter.pdf?format=raw https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/external-doc/guide/PDFs/gnucobpg-letter.pdf?format=raw [r3724] https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3724/: https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/ / external-doc https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/external-doc/ / guide https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/external-doc/guide/ / PDFs https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/HEAD/tree/external-doc/guide/PDFs/...

Taken from a copy downloaded from SVN just now. PG. Have not looked at QR. -- Marty Heyman +1 650-963-7606 (Office) http://www.symas.com/ https://COBOLworx.com/ On Jul 19, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Vincent (Bryan) Coen vcoen@users.sourceforge.net wrote: I am not concerned about a possible out of date source area but by the manual. PG or QR take you pick. On 19/07/2020 02:26, Marty Heyman wrote: Vince, Simon pointed me to: https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3716/tree//external-doc/guide/SYN-ED-SELECT.texi...

Vince, Simon pointed me to: https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3716/tree//external-doc/guide/SYN-ED-SELECT.texi https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3716/tree//external-doc/guide/SYN-ED-SELECT.texi where, in my browser, it shows up. -- Marty Heyman +1 650-963-7606 (Office) http://www.symas.com/ https://COBOLworx.com/ On Jul 18, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Vincent (Bryan) Coen vcoen@users.sourceforge.net wrote: I cannot find two instances of ORGANIZATION. Please cut and paste it please. On 18/07/2020...

That rendered page fixes the positioning so that the {ORGANIZATION clause} is below the LOCK MODE Pulldown. However, it now shows two instances of {ORGANIZATION clause}. My apologies for the wrong list. -- Marty Heyman +1 650-963-7606 (Office) http://www.symas.com/ https://COBOLworx.com/ On Jul 18, 2020, at 5:06 PM, Simon Sobisch sf-mensch@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Without a deeper look I guess https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3716/tree//external-doc/guide/SYN-ED-SELECT.texi https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/code/3716/tree//external-doc/guide/SYN-ED-SELECT.texi...

The diagram shows a "ORGANIZATION clause" but there is no heading just for that term. Instead, there are several individual subsections for the various OrgANIZATION subtypes. For consistency should there not be either a change to the diagram or a subsection for the clause name? Also, the diagram shows the LOCKMODE options cascading down next to the {ORGANIZATION clause} line whis is a bit visually confusing. Looking at the RC1 July 2 version.

Sorry, that was something of a personal Joke. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the COBOL compilers were different for DOS and OS … E and F respectively. I have a manual that covers both from 1973, a little older than the one I worked with originally in the 1960s in IBM Federal Systems and Components Division. Marty Heyman 650-963-7606 On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Vincent (Bryan) Coen vcoen@users.sourceforge.net wrote: On 30/06/2020 15:54, Marty Heyman wrote: Vincent, was your "OSVS" COBOL E or F?...