Paul Gilmartin wrote, in response to Ed Jaffe: I perceive a bit of expert's elitism, even narcissism in that rhetoric: "If you don't already know that, you're beneath my attention!" (I've tripped over the convention myself, at times.)
You obviously don't know Ed Jaffe. You read a whole lot more into his post than he put there. Steven F. Conway, CISSP LA Systems z/OS Systems Support Phone: 703.295.1926 [email protected] From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 02/19/2013 06:00 AM Subject: Re: Load and Add Sent by: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> On Feb 18, 2013, at 15:59, Edward Jaffe wrote: > On 2/18/2013 2:19 PM, Bodoh John Robert [Contractor] wrote: >> 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. > > I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, but I must ask: How long have you > been reading Principles of Operation? Are you new to the platform? > I perceive a bit of expert's elitism, even narcissism in that rhetoric: "If you don't already know that, you're beneath my attention!" (I've tripped over the convention myself, at times.) > Many of us on this list have been using the "bible" since the 1980s, 1970s or > even (in some cases) the 1960s and we are well acquainted with the conventions > used throughout the book. Even if they might seem arcane to some, my point was > that they are what they are and have always been. Changing them now would > require tremendous effort--arguably wasting precious IBM hardware development > resources. > Mostly agree. However, in section 5-2 of SA22-7832-08 I read: To describe the execution of instructions, operands are designated as first and second operands and, in some cases, third operands. ... which might usefully be expanded, with minor effort, to: To describe the execution of instructions, operands are designated as first operands, identified by subscript 1, and second operands, identified by subscript 2 and, in some cases, third operands, identified by subscript 3. Then Mr. Bodoh and I could be told RTFM (of course I hate to say that) and left to whine "Humpty-Dumpty!" at our pleasure. It would be pleonastic to require that each reference to {first|second| third} operand in the sequel be accompanied by a cross-reference to 5-2; nearly equally so that in the hypertext representation each such reference be a hyperlink to 5-2. -- gil
