Since I'm responsible, in part, for this thread...I'll try to end it with
one last explanation:

IF A > B
   DISPLAY "A > B"
ELSE
   IF A = B
      DISPLAY "A = B"
   ELSE
      DISPLAY "A < B"
   END-IF
END-IF.

is the same as

IF A > B
   DISPLAY "A > B"
ELSE
   IF A = B
      DISPLAY "A = B"
   ELSE
      DISPLAY "A < B".

The END-IF scope terminator is not required for this statement to execute
correctly, but it helps the readability.  With that in mind (that the scope
terminator helps in readability), I simply think that an END-INSPECT scope
terminator would serve to help the  "Readability" of the INSPECT verb
nicely...it would not make the code any more/less accurate...you could use
the END-INSPECT scope terminator for readability concerns it if you wish or
not use it...

Now, have I stated the "READABILITY" factor enough times, and in enough ways
to point out that the END-INSPECT scope terminator, while not necessary for
correct program execution, would be nice to have, so that all the code could
be written using scope terminators to help with the readability of the code
overall?  :-)  :-)  :-)


Ray Shahan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Handly [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 7:46 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Bizarre Cobol Error
>
> Shahan, Ray ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> : Yes, END-INSPECT is a good candidate for enhancement.  Since I don't
> have
> : ready access to the ANSI COBOL standards manual, I have to assume that
> it's
> : not supported by hp, because it ain't supported by ANSI.
>
> Why would you need END-INSPECT?  The statement is over at the next verb.
> There is no "error" clauses in INSPECT.
>
> * 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 *