John, I'm a pointer guy, not an MVC guy. I'm not advocating MVCing fullwords to halfwords before LHing them.
I'm saying if a 32-bit field is really a structure the first 16 bits of which are a 16-bit integer, then I ought to define it that way, not as a 32-bit integer. If it's both depending on the circumstances, then I ought to define it both ways. And it would be nice if the assembler had an option to warn those of us who would appreciate being warned if we violated the above. Not a constraint, but an option. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of john gilmore Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing) ... There are, I suppose, two polar programming postures. The first is move-orient[at]ed, compile-time bound, and synchronous. The second is list- and pointer-orient[at]ed, execution-time bound, and asychronous. ... because such conversions are anyway all but impossible; but I do find attempts to introduce COBOL-like assembly-time constraints into the HLASM very disagreeable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
