About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language

#**111**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**112**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**113**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**114**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**115**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**116**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**117**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

#**118**

<<Capitals also give me flashbacks of Cobol PIC's,>>
I know the pain thrust me. Even worse, do you remember 88's? It was
a cheap trick to allow to redefine data structure at run time with no
strings attached.

Last time I coded COBOL, I think my last thought was something like
*They will have to pay me lots of money if they want me to do this all
over again*.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language

comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM

Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language - 03-15-2008 , 10:22 AM