Phil,
> Seriously, not picking a fight, just don't understand whether you're
saying "This doesn't work because" or "Note that in cases like this,
there'd be some tinkering"?
the latter..., or something even milder, I just don't know what. Getting
into the habit of ignoring warnings is not a great idea, and it means
questions for the next person that has to look at your code.
I like the general idea. AKAIK, there is an EQU feature that checks that
you are using the right size register (32 or 64 bit) with the right
instruction. Perhaps something similar would do the trick.
Or maybe just a macro, like:
macro
&l lbase &r1,&addr Load a USING base reg
unprot &r1
&l l &r1,&addr
protect &r1
mend
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 Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote:
> Hobart Spitz wrote:
> >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.
>
> Sure, but...so? You'd explicitly unprotect, change, reprotect. That's the
> whole point. (Or not protect at all; this is optional, after all.)
>
> Seriously, not picking a fight, just don't understand whether you're
> saying "This doesn't work because" or "Note that in cases like this,
> there'd be some tinkering"?
>
