I couldn't disagree more. The document was written in English. I presume that, being written in English, it was meant for people that speak English. In every context that I can remember, "second operand" always referred to the operand that was in the second position. I have never heard of the phrase "second operand" to refer to a subscript.
John -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Load and Add It could be otherwise, but it is not. It is a convention, a convenient one in this context. . Arriving one time at the Tehran Airport with a bad cold, I was cautioned not to blow my nose in public. In Iran it was then (and may well still be) inexcusably rude to do so. I took note and closeted myself to use a Kleenex. Other people's conventions often seem drôle, but what they really are is different. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA On 2/18/13, Edward Jaffe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/18/2013 12:37 PM, Bodoh John Robert [Contractor] wrote: >> That's right, the operands are listed after the mnemonic. However, my >> presumption was the "second operand" is referring to the operand that is >> in the second position. It is very confusing to say "second" refers to >> the subscript. > > It has always been thus. The reason for the subscript is to denote which > operand > is being discussed--since storage operands are routinely broken up into > pieces > e.g., B2 and D2. > > -- > Edward E Jaffe > Phoenix Software International, Inc > 831 Parkview Drive North > El Segundo, CA 90245 > http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ >
