Kevin Lynch writes: <begin extract> Trying to get these simple objectives through to people seems like a very hard task sometimes. </end extract>
You got through, to me anyway; but I disagree sharply with your objectives. Moreover, disagreements of this sort are inevitable. Vanilla assembly language is in my view a poor thing that is inescapably long-winded, detail-ridden, and opaque. For me, its macro language is what makes the HLASM viable and important. Moreover, John Ehrman's macro seems to me to be a straightforward one. On a 1-to-10 scale of complexity I should (seriously) give it a 1. An attempt to minimize the use of notionally high-maintenance macros thus strikes me as wrong-headed. In my experience well conceived, properly implemented macro definitions require much less maintenance, a fortiori in fewer places, than does open code Your views are very different, but I am sure that we can both live with that. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
