Paul Gilmartin's view of the HLASM (and much else) is negative. His focus is on things to deplore.
I in turn deplore his focus. The HLASM has a long history and is still evolving. I find that I can use it to get my work done. I must sometime write a macro, resort to SETAF, or do some other uncongenial thing in order to do so, but I can get my work done. I do not, that is, expect the HLASM to reflect my world view exactly, not least because my world view is radically different from, say, Mr. Gilmartin's. Why these musings? There is a sense in which this thread is otiose. All of us presumably know how to determine the length of a DSECT, and the fact the L'<DSECT name> returns 1 as its value is not really very important. There is some language in Through the looking glass that is apposite here: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." This is a strategy open to all of us in our own speech and writing. We cannot, however, expect to be able to impose our own eccentric choices upon translators written by others. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
