For all types that I retrieve from Endevor (cobol asm macro copybook jcl
proc parm ...) 73-80 is worse than useless. The first thing I do when the
element is in my library is to do REN;UNNUM to eliminate them.
If they exist and if you use ISPF edit and if you have no bnds (and in
some cases if you do) they come into the useable area when the "(" line
command is used.
At one time there was an attempt here to use 73-80 for change control.
Since they are not on the normal ISPF edit screen on a 80 character wide
"green screen", they were too easy to lose. For cobol 1-6 tends to be
used for change control. For asm, there is less discipline. I tend to
use 68-71.
One of the great features of asm is that comments can be on a line of
code. That is one of the greatest annoyances of cobol. A construct like
/*...*/ is very desirable.
IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> wrote on
11/07/2012 10:21:28 AM:
> From: "McKown, John" <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com>
> 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?
> John McKown
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this communication (including any
attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the
personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom
it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying,
or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message. Thank you
