On 25 June 2018 at 21:49, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote: > > Seriously, l like it and would use it. I'd prefer it not be tied to USING > because there are other reasons to not use a register (I think; can't come > up with any offhand, but I feel like there are?). Maybe:
If you are traversing a linked-list of control blocks (e.g.), you might validly modify a USING register that points to a DSECT of that control block. OREXXMan JCL is the buggy whip of 21st century computing. Stabilize it. Put Pipelines in the z/OS base. Would you rather process data one character at a time (Unix/C style), or one record at a time? IBM has been looking for an HLL for program products; REXX is that language. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Rob van der Heij <rvdh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June 2018 at 21:49, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote: > > > > > Seriously, l like it and would use it. I'd prefer it not be tied to USING > > because there are other reasons to not use a register (I think; can't > come > > up with any offhand, but I feel like there are?). Maybe: > > > > I suppose there are plenty of cases outside the USING where it is harmful > to modify a register. Don't forget the base register, for those who don't > write baseless yet. And reading the value from the wrong register can also > keep you entertained for a while. I find these bugs mostly get in when I go > back and change the original choice of registers because it appears handy > to pick another one. > > Quite often the USING remains valid but the register points to another > object. I can see how you would put the USING and DROP within the loop when > the pointer is incremented. When you're picking up the next pointer from a > chain, you end up having to quality the field outside the USING scope > again. If anything, I would want tie this to the static nesting scope or > block structure rather than manually having to free up the protection. > > Instead of having this done during assembly, you could also have it as a > post-processing on the LISTING or ADATA. I inherited something that goes > through the assembly listing and frowns at known concerns.Personally, I > don't think this one is highest on my facepalm list. > > Rob >
