> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> > If COBOL were expected by the users (or the implementors) to address
> > endianness, that issue would have been raised long ago.
> Is COBOL really incapable of exchanging data between platforms of
> different Endianness? If so, I'll understand why my comparisons
> of Endianness to the BID/DPD distinction fall mostly on deaf ears.
They fall on deaf ears because COBOL is trying to deal with decimal64 and decimal128 operands and data items, not endianness. The issue HAS BEEN RAISED as a result of COBOL's earlier decision to address ONLY DPD and NOT BID, and I'm doing everything I can with limited resources to address it.
COBOL has not been put in the position of having to deal with endianness. The endianness controversy has been around for quite a long time, and it hasn't raised its ugly head in any practical situation that COBOL has been expected to deal with.
They may be parallel and of equivalent importance in your head, but that ain't the case for COBOL or for me. You can insist that I HAVE TO consider them equivalently problemmatical FOR COBOL TODAY all you want, that doesn't make it so. You're wasting time that I could be using to help resolve issues that demonstrably relate to COBOL in the first place, and my time resources rapidly grow short -- I am trying to get all the COBOL IEEE issues resolved by Tuesday at 2pm. I don't have to do ANYTHING about endianness in anything close to that time frame. Drop it.