On 6/10/24 02:01, Jonathan Scott wrote:
gil writes:
\>> 6 SE EQU SIGNED(&A) "for SETA, SETB, and
SETC"
I don't know what you mean by the last line, but the built-in
.
Intended to exhibit the expected error.
--
gil
gil writes:
> That example In the Language Ref. should be extended to show
> the effect of SIGNED in contexts beyond SETC, such as:
>2 &A SETA -10
>3 UE EQU &A Unsigned 10
> 000A+UE EQU 10
On 6/9/24 13:27, Farley, Peter wrote:
Gil,
In my browser (Firefox on Win10) there is this bit in the upper right corner of
the web page you linked to:
Was this topic helpful? [positive feedback link] [negative feedback link]
.
I've seen that. And watch IBM-MAIN for further comments.
But
Assembler List On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 2:49 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Negative SETA values (was Fw: BXLE usage assistance)
>> I'd submit a Feedback, but I can't find the web page.
>
> In IBM Docs, each page has &
On 6/9/24 12:00, Jonathan Scott wrote:
The problem is specifically that whenever a SETA variable is
substituted into a character string (either within an assembler
statement or within a conditional assembly character expression)
it does not include a minus sign for a negative value. I would
agre
The problem is specifically that whenever a SETA variable is
substituted into a character string (either within an assembler
statement or within a conditional assembly character expression)
it does not include a minus sign for a negative value. I would
agree this was bad design, but it happened in
On 6/7/24 11:53, Jonathan Scott wrote:
...
The SIGNED built-in function was
introduced as a partial workaround.
.
I had been unaware of the SIGNED BiF. I find the examples
in the Language Ref. inadequate:
SIGNED(10)has value '10'
SIGNED(-10) has value '-10'^M&A SETA 10
&
On 6/7/24 11:53, Jonathan Scott wrote:
Compatibility is critically important.
.
Thanks for your reply. I'm hardly surprised that it
mentions "compatibility".
And I'm astonished that the behavior had been institutionalized
in macros etc. before it surfaced as a problem. And dismayed
that the
Compatibility is critically important.
Even small changes can have unforeseen compatibility impacts.
When we allowed decimal self-defining terms to be negative, we
thought that was harmless, as self-defining terms have always
been allowed to be negative if expressed as binary, hexadecimal
or chara
