ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL 
Author Message
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL

FYI,
  The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
following information that was just distributed.

"Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
 Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

RESULT OF VOTING

P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

(P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <= 25%)

APPROVED
"

(FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised by
the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING to do
with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002 Standard.)

--
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:56:03 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
2002-09-17 11:33:55 MESZ

Quote:
> FYI,
>   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> following information that was just distributed.

Oops - all hopes to influence the Cobol Standard into that direction which
we already implemented are gone? So we now should actually read it?

OK, I was joking - we read it already. But the hard part of the job is now
to convince management that this is a good occasion for some
Veuve-Clicquot-Ponsardin. One bottle for each chapter.

Herwig



Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:37:18 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL

Where to find the approved version of COBOL standard?

Thomas



Quote:
> FYI,
>   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> following information that was just distributed.

> "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
>  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> RESULT OF VOTING

> P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

> (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
25%)

> APPROVED
> "

> (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised by
> the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING to
do
> with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
Standard.)

> --
> Bill Klein
>  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:22:55 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
A free copy of the text (but NOT the exact full and final formatting) of
what was approved can be downloaded (in ZIP format) at:

 http://www.incits.org/tc_home/j4.htm

I would expect the "final" (showing that it is approved) version to be
available FOR PURCHASE some time before the end of this year.  I do *not*
know how long this "free" version mentioned above will be kept on the incits
web page.

--
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Quote:

> Where to find the approved version of COBOL standard?

> Thomas



> > FYI,
> >   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> > following information that was just distributed.

> > "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
> >  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> > RESULT OF VOTING

> > P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

> > (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> > Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
> 25%)

> > APPROVED
> > "

> > (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised
by
> > the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> > number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING to
> do
> > with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
> Standard.)

> > --
> > Bill Klein
> >  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:57:55 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
So how long did it realy take? 10 years?



Quote:
> FYI,
>   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> following information that was just distributed.

> "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
>  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> RESULT OF VOTING

> P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

> (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
25%)

> APPROVED
> "

> (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised by
> the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING to
do
> with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
Standard.)

> --
> Bill Klein
>  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:52:26 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
The last full revision was approved in 1985.  The last amendment adding
functionality was approved in 1989.  The last amendment (corrections only -
at least in theory) was approved in 1993.  You can calculate accordingly.

To calculate when you can expect to see many implementations of the FULL
Standard (not just "bits and pieces") take the number 1 and divide by ZERO.
You may get a SLIGHTLY "quicker" number depending on your operating system
and "COBOL vendor of choice".

--
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Quote:
> So how long did it realy take? 10 years?



> > FYI,
> >   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> > following information that was just distributed.

> > "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
> >  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> > RESULT OF VOTING

> > P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >= 66.66%)

> > (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> > Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
> 25%)

> > APPROVED
> > "

> > (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised
by
> > the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> > number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING to
> do
> > with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
> Standard.)

> > --
> > Bill Klein
> >  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:13:44 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL


Quote:
> The last full revision was approved in 1985.  The last amendment adding
> functionality was approved in 1989.  The last amendment (corrections
only -
> at least in theory) was approved in 1993.  You can calculate accordingly.

"Calculate accordingly?"

C'mon, BIll, we would have understood "You can do the math."

You should consider seeing someone about this propensity toward
polysyllabic verbage.

MCM



Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:56:57 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
Time for a celebratory{*filter*}!



Quote:
> So how long did it realy take? 10 years?



> > FYI,
> >   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> > following information that was just distributed.

> > "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
> >  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> > RESULT OF VOTING

> > P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >=
66.66%)

> > (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> > Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
> 25%)

> > APPROVED
> > "

> > (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised
by
> > the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> > number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING
to
> do
> > with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
> Standard.)

> > --
> > Bill Klein
> >  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:45:10 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL
With fiends like J4, you don't need{*filter*}s...

Pete.

Quote:

> Time for a celebratory{*filter*}!



> > So how long did it realy take? 10 years?



> > > FYI,
> > >   The ISO COBOL Standard was approved with NO negative votes.  See the
> > > following information that was just distributed.

> > > "Information technology -- Programming languages -- COBOL
> > >  Document:ISO/IEC FDIS 1989

> > > RESULT OF VOTING

> > > P-Members voting: 16 in favour out of 16 = 100 % (requirement >=
>  66.66%)

> > > (P-members having abstained are not counted in the vote)

> > > Member bodies voting: 0 negative votes out of 22 = 0 % (requirement <=
>  25%)

> > > APPROVED
> > > "

> > > (FYI, for those of you "used to" ANSI COBOL numbers, don't be surprised
>  by
> > > the "1989" in the official number of this document.  This is a "random"
> > > number - like the 10646 in the "character" Standard - and has NOTHING
>  to
>  do
> > > with a date/year.  I believe it is now "safe" to call this a 2002
>  Standard.)

> > > --
> > > Bill Klein
> > >  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com



Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:22:09 GMT  
 ISO COBOL Standard - It's FINAL

Quote:
> With fiends like J4, you don't need{*filter*}s...

LOL, thanks, Pete:-)


Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:34:49 GMT  
 
 [ 12 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Next (post 2002) ISO COBOL Standard

2. Reporting defects in the ANSI/ISO COBOL Standards

3. ABSOLUTELY last chance to comment on next COBOL ANSI/ISO Standard

4. ISO COBOL Standard available from ANSI online store

5. ANSI, ISO, IEEE STANDARD .. FORTRAN FAQ's

6. Final comment on draft (probably soon to be official) COBOL Standard

7. What's new *and* interesting for IBM mainframe COBOL programmers - in the next COBOL Standard

8. FINAL (hopefully?) draft of ISO COBOL Standard available for purchase & U.S. comment

9. ANSI COBOL and ISO COBOL meetings this summer

10. I don't care about a hypertext Cobol standards document

11. branching in proposed ISO standard

12. ISO Standards Documents

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software