Not so, look at the COMPUTE command, it shares the same situation with the
INSPECT command (another verb ends the statement), but the COMPUTE command
has an END-COMPUTE.  The INSPECT statement should have and END-INSPECT for
the same reason the other verbs do....style.

The END-VERB construct has never been, and is not now required...it simply
helps code readability, and in many cases, makes it a hell of a lot easier
to write the code (especially when in maintenance mode).



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Hirsch [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:49 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Bizarre Cobol Error
>
> There is no END-INSPECT because none is needed.  The use of any verb will
> begin the next statement.  You've never needed a period to end an INSPECT
> statement.
>
> The only verbs that need END- tags are the ones that can contain other
> statements, either because they are flow control constructs
> (IF,PERFORM,EVALUATE) or because they have exception condition (AT END, ON
> SIZE ERROR).
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shahan, Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Bizarre Cobol Error
>
>
> > Yes, END-INSPECT is a good candidate for enhancement.  Since I don't
> have
> > ready access to the ANSII COBOL standards manual, I have to assume that
> it's
> > not supported by hp, because it ain't supported by ANSII.
> >
> > As for the complexity of use...I think it's a double edged sword...it
> does
> > take some reading/understanding to use INSPECT correctly because of all
> of
> > the options the command has, but those command options also make the
> INSPECT
> > command a very robust command.
> >
> > Ray Shahan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tracy Pierce [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:36 PM
> > > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject:      FW: Bizarre Cobol Error
> > >
> > > I privately replied to Ray...
> > >
> > > > I was about to say I thought INSPECT was no longer 'in thar',
> > > > but that's clearly wrong.  Are you sure there's no
> > > > END-INSPECT (it sure isn't doc'd in the manual)?  I think
> > > > THAT would be a valid enhancement request, don't you?
> > >
> > > ...before realizing that his reply to me was on-list.  Ten minutes
> later,
> > > oh
> > > yeah - EXAMINE was replaced by INSPECT.  So WHY no END-INSPECT?  Could
> it
> > > have been overlooked?  Could it be that the code behind INSPECT is so
> > > horrible nobody got around to rewriting it?  Or that its
> implementation
> > > was
> > > already so buggy that rewriting it would have broken a good portion of
> > > existing usage?  Does this seem like a valid SIGCOBOL issue?
> > >
> > > For my money, when an INSPECT candidate situation occurs, I've always
> > > found
> > > a way around having to integrate (or maybe just read?) the NINE pages
> of
> > > prose documentation covering its operation into my programs by simply
> > > writing my own loops, hopefully more straightforward.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracy (always hated INSPECT) Pierce
> > >
> > > PS: my minimal-periods strategy still would have caught the
> missing-space
> > > problem!
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Shahan, Ray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > > To: Tracy Pierce; Shahan, Ray; [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Subject: RE: Bizarre Cobol Error
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I can think of a spot where no periods might sting...the INSPECT
> > > > > statement...I've always wondered why they didn't do an
> END-INSPECT?
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From:     Tracy Pierce [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > > Sent:     Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:26 AM
> > > > > > To:       'Shahan, Ray'; [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > Subject:  RE: Bizarre Cobol Error
> > > > > >
> > > > > > everybody's right on the money with this one, including Ray,
> who's
> > > > > > assuming
> > > > > > that the prior paragraph was PERFORMed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I generally avoid problems like this by avoiding the use of
> > > > > the other
> > > > > > "paragraph" indicator, which is the period (.).  That
> > > > > normally ends a
> > > > > > sentence, but is really only necessary at the end of a
> > > > > paragraph.  Not
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > periods to end sentences will also force you to use
> > > > > cobol-85 constructs
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > as END-IF, a very good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tracy Pierce
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Shahan, Ray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:16 AM
> > > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bizarre Cobol Error
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, it will GOBACK to calling paragraph at
> > > > > > > perform1020-put-record.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ray Shahan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Curt Brimacomb [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:06 AM
> > > > > > > > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > > > Subject:      Re: Bizarre Cobol Error
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > never thought about that one.  Things that make you go
> > > > > > > hhhmmmmmm......
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the enlightenment!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > curt
> > > > > > > >   -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   You intended to PERFORM a paragraph name 1020-put-record,
> > > > > > > instead you
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a NEW Paragraph named 'perform1020-put-record'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   This will compile clean, but will not perform
> > > > > > > 1020-put-record as you
> > > > > > > > intended it to, instead it will fall through to perform
> > > > > > > > 1220-lock-next-set.
> > > > > > > > Probably not the results you were looking for.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   --
> > > > > > > >   Michael -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   >>> Curt Brimacomb <[log in to unmask]> 06/27/01
> > > > > 09:40AM >>>
> > > > > > > >   I just had a very bizarre Cobol error.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   I was redoing paragraph names in the source code.  I
> > > > > > > accidentally lost a
> > > > > > > >   space after the word "perform" on one line and ended up
> > > > > > > with something
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >   this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >          perform1020-put-record.
> > > > > > > >          perform 1220-lock-next-set.
> > > > > > > >          move "update" to status.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   1000-next-para.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   the program complied with no errors, but would not run
> > > > > > > right.  I added
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >   one space back into the "bad" perform line.  It still
> > > > > > > compiled with no
> > > > > > > >   errors, but now does run correctly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Why did it compile with the missing space
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list
> > > > > settings, *
> > > > > > > > * etc., please visit
> > > > http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings,
> *
> > > > > > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html
> *
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> > > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> >
> > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *