I really like mixed case, but I find the variable length nature of Unix (well probably C/C++) output adds to the difficulty of quickly determining the useful information in the useful message often buried in a massive amount of fluffiness. Probably just me :)
Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State University > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Art Celestini > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:17 AM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: MVC with 2nd operand length > > Yes. I almost always DSECT output records with each target field clearly > defined. > It makes life a lot easier if I later decide to move things around, as well as > easier for the guy who has to come along after me and determine from > where some > piece of data in the output record originated. > > --Art > > At 10:33 AM 5/22/2012, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > >On May 22, 2012, at 07:56, Art Celestini wrote: > >> > >> Personally, I have not encountered many circumstances where I needed to > MVC using > >> the length of the source. I suppose that if it were to become a common > practice > >> for me, something like John Ehrman's macro would clearly be of interest. > >> > >I'm moderately surprised. I'd expect that moving fields into a buffer > >to build a print line should be a common occurrence -- like strcpy(). > >Or is it more common to map subfields of the buffer and let those > >determine the length(s) of the MVC(s)? > > > >-- gil
