On 7/08/12 7:03 AM, "Paul Gilmartin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Question- would it really change anything (to unusability), if HLASM >> would return the proper length and not 1? >> >o It would be more useful, but it would surely break some > existing code. Really? If the length is currently defined to be 1, then it seems to me that any code currently using it would be either (a) broken, or (b) deliberately expecting a value of 1, and therefore unnecessarily obscure. Of these, (a) seems much more likely, and thus the proposed change to HLASM might actually help. I don't discount the possibility of (b), mind you... Regards, Allen
