On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:44:00 +0000, john gilmore wrote: > ><begin snippet> >I haven't coded a WTO lately. IIRC (much of) the cruft mentioned arises from >the unforgivable misdesign of placing options after a variable-length text >argument. It would have been so easy to do it right. ></end snippet> > >If this means what it appears to mean it reflects 'radical' ignorance of HLASM >syntax. > You needn't quote "radical". (Is it an attribution to yourself?) If you feel you overuse it to the point of tedium, choose a different adjective; your vocabluary likely includes a wealth of intensifiers.
>The HLASM imposes no requirement that keyword-parameter values follow (or, of >course, precede) positional-parameter ones. It does impose the obvious, >essential requirement that positional-parameter values appear in a macro >instruction in the same sequence in which they appear in its macro definition; >but that is another matter. > No, no, no! I was referring not to the syntax of the macro instruction, but to the generated argument list to the SVC, which places options after the variable-length text string, requiring convolutions to supply a text string of unpredictable length in the MF=E form. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
