>>To be frank, I wouldn't bother to start. Attempts have been made over the
>>last 10 years to create a "Structured COBOL", but personally I consider the
>>phrase to be an oxymoronism. There are some things that you have to do via
>>the dreaded GOTO.
>
>George, - there was more recent attempt and defining object orineted COBOL ,
>this is much more fun than anything else in the world I guess (g)
>
>Arnon

Arnon,

I shudder at the thought of OOPBOL ;-), I mean OOP COBOL. I had a CS professor who referrred to it as CRUDBOL. My last experience with it was in 1987, so I'm not surprised that it changed some. The 2000 problem (which they've known about for years) probably applies to the ancient, line-oriented versions that are still running things. I wish anyone who has to deal with that all the luck in the world, they'll need it. But, better them than me.

George