There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned.
But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one,
will not bother.
I just pity the poor people you work with.
Tony Thigpen
-----Original Message -----
From: Steve Hobson
Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM
John Gilmore wrote:
I disagree so strongly with an earlier recommendation to avoid macros
that I do not trust myself to comment upon it. I will, however,
venture to remind its poster that LIBMAC makes relevant macro
definitions readily and immediately available.
I am the poster you refer to.
I did a quick check of an assembly that is typical of the sort if thing I
work with every day. The SYSLIB concatenation contains roughly 6500
members (not all of these are macros, of course).
It may well be that in this vast collection there are already macros --
quite possibly dozens of them -- to assist with using the ED and/or EDMK
instructions.
However, it would be *much* quicker for me to write a new macro every time
I need one than it would be for me to search for an existing macro.
And it is *much* quicker for me to write easy-to-understand open code than
it is for me to write, test, and document a macro to generate the code.
That's what I prefer to do and that's what I prefer others to do in code
that I work with. Why do you object to that?
Best regards, Steve Hobson
Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
