Ref: Your note of Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:52:24 +0000 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz writes: > Why do you consider an I/O error a "should not occur" situation rather than > an expected exception? Why can't HLASM provide footprints for the error > routine to use for a context message?
Trapping an I/O error via a common exit routine is similar to trapping an unexpected abend. One can of course provide footprints all over the code so that HLASM can tell what information may be valid, and HLASM does at least do this for some cases involving running out of storage. However, whenever you attempt to start being "intelligent" about unexpected errors you are risking making things worse and obscuring the evidence of the original problem. It is also extremely difficult to test such "intelligent" logic because the very nature of unexpected errors means that it is tricky to simulate them realistically. I also feel that even if such changes are feasible, it is better to use our development resources on enhancements rather than trying to make up for historically cryptic operating system error messages. But I do agree we could make it easier to find the SYNAD message documentation. Jonathan Scott, HLASM IBM Hursley, UK
