John, do you know if something akin to DCF is still used in the production
of it? Or, better still, Bookie. I think Jonathan Scott thought not.
But if so the conversion to HTML and then on (via modern web techniques)
might make the process automatable.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion,
Architects? Did IBM lay off the last technical writer?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:48 PM, John Ehrman wrote:
> As others have noted, the PoP is quite large and dense. Changing the
> formatting would be a significant effort.
>
> The z Architects are always very busy, and I suspect would have diffi
Something for an intern
Tony Thigpen
John Ehrman wrote on 11/13/2014 04:48 PM:
As others have noted, the PoP is quite large and dense. Changing the
formatting would be a significant effort.
The z Architects are always very busy, and I suspect would have difficulty
finding resources needed
Robin Vowels noted:
>CVB and CVD have always been part of the fixed-point instruction
>set (the basic set), and are not part of the decimal set.
That's what my antique Green Card says!
From: "Tom Marchant" <00a69b48f3bb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:11 AM
CVD is part of the Decimal Feature.
CVB and CVD have always been part of the fixed-point instruction set
(the basic set), and are not part of the decimal set.
That may not be importa
As others have noted, the PoP is quite large and dense. Changing the
formatting would be a significant effort.
The z Architects are always very busy, and I suspect would have difficulty
finding resources needed to adopt any of the suggestions on this list.
Regards... John
I'm not sure how much drilling down you'd like to do once you're at the
instruction level, but FYI, Appendix B contains three tables of
instructions just as you asked for, arranged by name, mnemonic, and
operation code. Each table entry has a link to the instruction
description. Hopefully you
We could always code the information into a small database with as many
dimensions as we wanted and allow the data to be cut by any or all of them.
Perhaps an app for your phone, tablet or PC.
Would be cool.
Not what the POP is about, but it would be cool.
Joey
-Original Message-
From
On 2014-11-12, at 23:27, fred.van.der.wi...@mail.ing.nl wrote:
>
> That is an excellent point. The description would get a lot clearer if it
> just detailed one instruction. That could be a significant improvement. I'm
> sure IBM can come up with a mechanism to create such an end result without
Ref: Your note of Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:20:11 -0500
zMan wrote:
> Was this billed as an "improvement to service our customers better"?? Sigh.
I am definitely a fan of BookManager format, and miss the ease
of use of Principles of Operation in that format.
However, I think that in this case it is l
On 2014-11-13, at 01:24, Rob van der Heij wrote:
>
> PS It's hard to avoid abuse. A former colleague once complained that an
> instruction was not documented (yes, I know there are some). But it turned
> out he never looked at anything but the examples in Appendix A. :-)
>
Contrariwise, I once r
Was this billed as an "improvement to service our customers better"?? Sigh.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Scott <
jonathan_sc...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Ref: Your note of 13 November 2014, 16:22:31 UTC
>
> I asked the z/Architecture people about this some time ago.
> Principles of Op
Ref: Your note of 13 November 2014, 16:22:31 UTC
I asked the z/Architecture people about this some time ago.
Principles of Operation was converted from BookMaster to a
different format (not a mark-up language) some years ago. It
ceased being available in BookManager format at that time.
Martin
A page eject before each instruction doesn't matter to me one way or
another. I rarely print instruction write-ups so the extra paper isn't an
issue. In PDF form, the size is almost irrelevant.
I wouldn't like single-column format, though. I'm not a usability expert,
but I find that on today
It sounds like (and this matches my experience) a pass through the book,
marking the "flavors" of instructions with, say, margin characters, might help.
I don't have the book in front of me, but say there were (only!) four forms of
ADD:
AH - halfword
AR- register
A - full
I do think throwing it through B2H could be handy - if the DCF macros
aren't too exotic. The resulting HTML might be loadable via some
javascript to add some value.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM
+44-7802-245
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:01:30 -0800, Phil Smith wrote:
>And it used to only be a couple of hundred pages or so.
The System/360 POO was about 200 pages, with only 143 instructions.
The System/370 POO was nearly 400. Now that we have about 1000
instructions, it is not surprising that it is 1500 p
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:59:17 -, MELVYN MALTZ wrote:
>I think you miss the point.
I think you miss the point of what the POO is.
>What I am suggesting is that each instruction is concisely defined.
They are.
>Start with ADD in Chapter 7, where 15 instructions are concisely compressed
>into
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:04:18 -0500, Melvyn Maltz wrote:
>Now that I've restarted teaching Assembler I realise that the PoP neither
>serves the professional learning new instructions or techniques
I am a professional Assembler programmer and I find that the POO serves
me very well for learning
Well, now I understand why my response (a) showed by itself in the browser
where I actually *read* most list mail, and (b) elicited no responses: I sent
it to IBM-MAIN instead of this list. Doh.
Capps, Joey wrote:
>Personally I don't think it's design was to save paper.
>I think it was to 'be co
Actually so would I.
But that would be a different manual, with a different purpose.
Joey
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Ward Able, Grant
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:52 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UG
It's an architectural specification book, not a text book.
I would prefer it stay that way.
There certainly is room for more, and better designed textbooks on this topic
though.
If someone wanted to take a POP like approach to writing one, and expand that
to include more useful information for s
I agree with the need to modernize the look and feel of the manual. It
still appears to be based in the 360 version, which was always used in
hardcopy, and could be easily paged through to find the instruction
(once you remembered which were decimal and which general so you looked
in the right
My opinion is that the reference should be a reference and not a how-to-use
guide (as would be used in programming classes).
I have no problem with a "How to write and assembler program" manual, but it
is outside the scope of the POPs.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:52:17 + "Ward Able, Grant"
wrote
I vote for same content, but delivered via an iOS app.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Tuben, Gregg
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:33 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redesigning the Princi
I thought this whole thing would be about the two column structure, which never
bothered me in print, but is mildly annoying to navigate on a screen.
The content works for me.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Ward
I could not disagree more, Joey!
PRECISE yes, but it does not need to be concise. I have always believed that it
is too terse and could do with and upgrade. Mervyn's suggestions are a good
starting argument and I, for one, would really enjoy a much more modern POPS
manual, which has more verbose
On 13 November 2014 04:20, Mark Boonie wrote:
> - No more bunching: Perhaps a reasonable suggestion. Bear in mind,
> though, that it would increase the repetitive nature of the document.
> Also, the need to ensure that similar instructions were documented
> similarly as much as possible would
28 matches
Mail list logo
