I suppose the way one groups the letters would be influenced
by one's own habits. I would expect that experienced z/OS
programmers would know that for the past few decades, new
macro names follow the same convention as module names and
message IDs by starting with the 3 character prefix of
On 2018-08-25, at 17:22:52, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>> I once tried to define a prototype with DCs;
>
> Briefly, here is what I do:
>
> - Code a separate CSECT for my "model" (as I call it)
> ...
Costs a base register, but only very briefly. Or is there now a SS
instruction where the source is
> That one wouldn't pass muster as a California vanity license plate
Geez. Had not noticed that. Sheesh!
> I once tried to define a prototype with DCs;
Briefly, here is what I do:
- Code a separate CSECT for my "model" (as I call it)
- Code all of the MF=L and constants and so forth there
-
On 2018-08-25, at 14:27:44, Charles Mills wrote:
> +2
>
> Labels belong in column 1 where your eye can scan for them.
>
Who thinks up these macro names, anyway? That one wouldn't pass muster
as a California vanity license plate.
> It's great that the new MF=L macros do not require
+2
Labels belong in column 1 where your eye can scan for them.
It's great that the new MF=L macros do not require initialization but is
"which ones" documented anywhere? I tend to use a "model" scheme for
initializing the DSECT with the MF=L's that works well for me, so I always
use it.
Charles
On 2018-08-25, at 11:20:42, Steve Smith wrote:
> Just in case anyone cares about my HO, I hate the "new" syntax, and think the
> list forms are hideous. While I agree they are documented adequately, putting
> the label as a required 2nd sub-operand of MF=L is terrible. Labels belong
> in
Just in case anyone cares about my HO, I hate the "new" syntax, and
think the list forms are hideous. While I agree they are documented
adequately, putting the label as a required 2nd sub-operand of MF=L is
terrible. Labels belong in column one (I am aware of the option to put
an alias
On 2018-08-25, at 07:06:30, Peter Relson wrote:
> The documentation seems quite clear to me. Almost every macro written in
> the last 20+ years has used this same syntax for the list form. We felt it
> best to have the syntax for list form be analogous to that for execute and
> modify forms.
>
On 8/25/2018 6:06 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
You mention a "DSECT". I cannot think of any case where a list form
builds a DSECT. You might put a list form within a DSECT. But that is your
DSECT.
Indeed. Putting the list form in a DSECT is the preferred approach these
days since (almost?) every
The documentation seems quite clear to me. Almost every macro written in
the last 20+ years has used this same syntax for the list form. We felt it
best to have the syntax for list form be analogous to that for execute and
modify forms.
The syntax diagram shows the valid format. As does the
10 matches
Mail list logo
