We all know that the object-computer and source-computer clause is more or less to be treated like a comment only (apart from the option with debugging mode attached to the source-computer)
We/our customer has a couple of programs with the WRONG order of these options (refer to the attachted Cobol program). No doubt, this should be at least a warning under ibm-cobol as well, but it is not ...
Your strict parser rules run into the next error messages:
I think, as ease of use, the parser should not be too rigid on the order of all these options which are more or less like an "intelligent" comment in Cobol ...
> Parsing file AAA01.CBL.
> line 15:7 mismatched input 'OBJECtT-COMPUTER' expecting <EOF>
> Collecting units in file AAA01.CBL.
>
[AAA01.cbl.txt](https://github.com/uwol/cobol85parser/files/1205597/AAA01.cbl.txt)
The issue has been fixed in 1328477a920c374cb4db8fc7103ce788d27c181b. Now, a special names paragraph can be contained in a configuration section. Also added a unit test.
First of all - no doubt, your parser is right in "insisting" on the defined order of
We all know that the object-computer and source-computer clause is more or less to be treated like a comment only (apart from the option with debugging mode attached to the source-computer)
We/our customer has a couple of programs with the WRONG order of these options (refer to the attachted Cobol program). No doubt, this should be at least a warning under ibm-cobol as well, but it is not ...
Your strict parser rules run into the next error messages: I think, as ease of use, the parser should not be too rigid on the order of all these options which are more or less like an "intelligent" comment in Cobol ...