Jon,
The problem is that you are assuming that my programmers are complaining
about what happens when they use the macro contrary to the
documentation. They don't. You are trying to argue an issue based on a
false premise.
My people are smart enough to read any abend dump and figure out that
they did something stupid. Maybe your people are not and so you have to
coddle them.
It all boils down to you only wanting things to work the way you want
them to, and not the way someone else wants them to.
Is it the best code example? No.
Does it work every time the coder uses it correctly? Yes.
If the coder uses it incorrectly, does it affect the end user? No, if
fails the first test run.
And, yes, I did assemble it. I did not run it because, by design, it
would abend if used incorrectly.
Your just being picky. I'm done with the conversation.
Tony Thigpen
Jon Perryman wrote on 3/10/19 6:27 PM:
In this case, it's not archaic. Column 16 is the standard assembler
continuation column. His assembler colleagues can't complain about that. They
are complaining about clean compiles and debugging strange program behavior
because the label is in the wrong column. How many times did I repeat the bug
and he still says I'm complaining about the archaic fixed format (Even with
source demonstrating the problem).
Jons On Sunday, March 10, 2019, 1:47:02 PM PDT, Paul Gilmartin
<00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-
>On 2019-03-10, at 04:50:11, Tony Thigpen wrote:
If you are fussing about the fixed-format of the input,
That's painfully archaic.
