I stopped using sequence numbers years ago, even though for 99% of my editing I use ISPF. As long as your source code maintenance software doesn't require it (most don't these days) I see no reason at all to use it. IMHO it clutters the translator/compiler listing with useless information. Whichever language I am working in (HLASM, COBOL Rexx, JCL/PROC, whatever), I mark the lines that I need to change with an identifying string or comment to leave the "bread crumbs" other maintainers will need to identify what I changed. No need for sequence numbers that I can see.
I also haven't used IEBUPDTE in so long I would have to go back to the manual to figure out how to use it again. When I had the privilege of working in a VM environment decades ago, I used to make extensive use of the VMUPDATE facility to maintain software. IIRC even that excellent facility doesn't use sequence numbers but relative line number, but I could be mis-remembering that. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:21 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Use of "sequence numbering" in current HLASM source? I know where our "love" of putting sequence numbers in columns 73-80 comes from. But the only thing that I know of that continues to really use them is IEBUPDTE. So I'm wondering if it is really worth the bother to have them anymore. Now, most here would likely say "what bother? ISPF makes it easy." True. *If* you are using the ISPF editor and keep your HLASM source code in a RECFM=FB,LRECL=80 data set. It may not be as well known here as in other fora, but I have a real liking for UNIX (and Linux). I mainly keep my source in z/OS UNIX files in specific subdirectories instead of as members in a PDS. I have also fallen in love with FLOWASM's "free format" input for HLASM. And, recently, I have gotten to liking using "git" on Linux for "change control" (it is a version control system such as CVS, Subversion, ...). So I am now often keeping a copy of my source in Linux as well. Since I can't use "git" in z/OS UNIX because I cannot find a port of it. So, other than being "non main stream" and even "obsessively weird", is there any *technical* reason to maintain sequence numbers? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
