Edward Hart <edward.dan.hart@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Joakim,
>
> I've only found one bug in the patch which involves function
> definitions and program definitions in the same file. If I create an
> index for such a file, the index entries for the first
> program/function are not listed under the program/function's name but
> just "File section", "Working-storage section", etc. The entries for
> the following programs/functions are listed under their names, as
> expected.

I have now changed it so that if there is only one subprogram the menu
items are the full "WORKING-STORAGE SECTION", "FILE SECTION" etc, but if
there is more than one every subprogram's items are listed under the
respective subprogram name.

> I have a few suggestions for the code itself:
>
> * By convention, COBOL keywords are written in uppercase and I think
> the regexps should be changed to reflect that.

Done.

> * The code assumes all programs have IDENTIFICATION DIVISION headers,
> however the header is optional. Match against PROGRAM/FUNCTION-ID
> instead using cobol--function-id-name-re instead (which is equivalent
> to cobol--imenu-program-name).

Done.

> * The "^[ \t]*\\([[:digit:]]\\{1,2\\}\\|[fsr]d\\)[ \t]+\\(\\w+\\)"
> regexp can be replaced with cobol--generic-declaration-re.

And done :)

I discovered another thing I had overlooked: There need not be
paragraphs (or sections or whatever they're called) in the procedure
division. Some programs just have the code directly there. So now the
procedure division itself gets an entry under "PROCEDURE DIVISION" or
"$subprogram_name PD" with the name of the subprogram/function. WDYT?

> Two very useful features I'd like to suggest would be peeking at
> (displaying the line a data item is defined on in a temporary buffer
> would be good enough) and jumping to data definitions. Adding key
> bindings for them would be an added bonus.

I took the liberty of hacking up something :) That's the last three
functions in the file. It's very ugly and I did it mostly to see if it
could work, and well, it seems to work a little at least.

-- Jocke