I fail to see how sequence numbers make editing easier or how
they make finding/fixing errors easier.I’m pretty certain that HLASM error
messages are unambiguous in the way they indicate the provenance of problematic
source code statements.No doubt Sisyphus would have been compelled to use
sequence numbers if he maintained code instead of a rock.
Keven
Get Outlook for iOS
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM -0600, "Gibney, Dave" <gib...@wsu.edu> wrote:
I find them far more irritating than useful.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of John McKown
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 5:53 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Any real need for sequence numbers in 73-80 any more?
>
> I know that in the past, they were handy for when you dropped your deck of
> physical cards. And if guess that they can still be handy if you distribute
> source modifications in a format suitable for processing by IEBUPDTE, like
> IBM does at times.
>
> But I'm having trouble figuring out why I would want to do this with my own
> code. The reason I'm even considering stopping is because I really prefer to
> keep my HLASM code in a UNIX directory rather than a PDS.
>
> --
> I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.
>
> Maranatha! <><
> John McKown
