Ref: Your note of Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:08:40 +0200 The compatibility issue is primarily to do with non-extended USING range limit checking and possible future function to control the range of extended displacement USINGs.
It would of course be possible to quietly disable the limit check on dependent USING statements without causing errors. However, there is the future possibility that HLASM might implement new function to provide full control over extended displacement USING ranges, in which case it might be better for the existing syntax to preserve the existing meaning, including the existing limit checks on dependent USINGs. I cannot of course discuss what plans, if any, IBM has for such enhancements. This is just the historical reason why HLASM continues to check range limits on dependent USING for now. On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:08:40 +0200 Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:40:39 +0100 Jonathan Scott > <jonathan_sc...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > :>There is a current limitation for compatibility and migration > :>reasons that a dependent USING must refer to a field that is > :>directly addressable without using an extended displacement. > > What compatibility issue might this be? Jonathan Scott HLASM Development IBM UK, Hursley
