Of the three constructions under discussion
1)
| LHI R1,-4
| LA R3,0(R1,R2)
2)
| LR R3,R2
| AHI R3,-4
3)
| LAY R3,-4(,R2)
3) seems to me to be more perspicuous than 2), which is certainly more
perspicuous than 1).
That said, I want also to register my distress. There is really no room left
in the world for amateur or duffer HLASM programmers, who should write C or
RPG. (There is room for learners/apprentices; but that is another matter.)
Any non-student who is writing an assembly-language routine can presumably take
in at a glance---not just understand after extended conscious analysis---what
each of these constructions does, and comments that paraphrase what they do are
otiose. They are indeed annoying. Comments must address why not what.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me repeat my point. Explicating what instruction
sequences do is not the proper function of comments. The instructions do this
job themselves better than any dubious natural-language paraphrase can do it.
The proper function of comments is to motivate instruction sequences.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
