Document Number: J4/02-0252
November 21, 2002
DF-3.2 Page 1 of 2
Defect Report Response DF-3.2
Subject:
Clarify FORMAT Clause
Author:
Charles C. Stevens
Previous Version:
J4/02-0150
References in Document:
1.
ISO/IEC FDIS 1989:2002, Programming language COBOL:
a.
Page 286, 13.16.22, FORMAT clause, syntax rule 2c3
b.
Page 507, 14.8.33, REWRITE statement, syntax rule 10b
c.
Page 559, 14.8.47 WRITE statement, syntax rule 7b
Other References:
2.
J4/01-0376 – Comments on SC/22 N2304 (FCD 1989) (Klein/Josling)
Submitter:
This report was submitted directly to J4 by William M. Klein
(wmklein
@
ix.netcom.com) on behalf of Tim Josling .
Nature of Defect:
Reference 2, Item 99 comments that in 13.16.22.3, FORMAT clause, General
Rule 2c3e, it is not specified how the usage varies with the magnitude.
.
Solution Proposed by Submitter:
Clarify that the first one that can hold the value is the one used, even if the
precision is less than the precision of the value. Require a warning on lost
precision. (Reference 2 Item 99)
Discussion at Meeting 238:
Document Number: J4/02-0252
November 21, 2002
DF-3.2 Page 2 of 2
Motion: To approve the Proposed Response and Changes Need sections of 02-
0150 as modified, and to request that Mr. Stevens prepare an ISO-format defect
report based on this document. Passed; Yes – 7; No – 0; Abstain – 0.
Proposed response:
General Rule 2c3e of the FORMAT clause is indeed unclear as to which implicit
data description entry would be used in this context. Further research revealed,
however, that floating-point numeric literals are prohibited in this context by the
rules for the REWRITE and WRITE statements (references 1b and 1c
respectively) and General Rule 2c3e is therefore unnecessary.
General Rule 2c3d addresses fixed-point literals, which are also disallowed in
REWRITE and WRITE, and is unnecessary for the same reasons.
Changes Needed in Technical Corrigendum:
The following changes to the standard are needed:
13.16.22, FORMAT clause: Delete general rules 2c3d and 2c3e.
