== Why is this an issue?

It is fairly normal for COBOL development teams to decide to work either with sections or with paragraphs and to make this choice a standard.

When sections are used, it is also normal to define another standard: "End every section definition with an empty paragraph definition, or a paragraph containing only a terminating statement".

This empty paragraph can then be jumped to with a ``++GO TO++`` statement to stop the execution of a section.

Accepted terminating statements in the otherwise-empty ending paragraph are: ``++EXIT++``, ``++EXIT PROGRAM++``, ``++STOP RUN++``, and ``++GO BACK++``.


=== Noncompliant code example

In this example, an empty paragraph is missing at the end of the first section definition.

[source,cobol]
----
FIRST_SECTION SECTION.
  ...

SECOND_SECTION SECTION.
  ...
SECOND_SECTION_END.
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,cobol]
----
FIRST_SECTION SECTION.
  ...
FIRST_SECTION_END.

SECOND_SECTION SECTION.
  ...
SECOND_SECTION_END.
----



ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Add an empty paragraph at the end of this "XXXX" section.


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== relates to: S1594

=== on 20 Nov 2013, 12:34:24 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
I am wondering how this could conflict with COBOL.UnusedParagraphOrSectionLabelCheck.

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]