Skip Robinson wrote:
I once had to explain to the author of a very silly CLIST why it suddenly
failed to enter an expected (!) ERROR routine because underscore was no
longer invalid in labels. I didn't feel very guilty about that one. What a
dope.
I remember reading about a new OP code being introduced on a processor.
There was a note of caution that I found almost funny: the new OP code
would not cause a problem for any program *unless* that program were
depending on the OP code *not* to be valid. Where's my S0C1? I need my
S0C1! After all these years in the business, I would not bet the farm on
there being no such program.
Lots of people get "burned" by the introduction of new opcodes, syntax,
or compiler diagnostics. The most famous example was the MSG
instruction. It conflicted with many home-grown "message" macros with
the same name.
No program can be guaranteed to compile or work forever. The "owner" of
any such a program must always be prepared to adapt...
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
