Wasn't there an IBM warning that user macros should be greater than five characters since all opcodes were to be five characters or less, and thus this problem would be avoided?
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:30:34 -0400 Alex Kodat <[email protected]> wrote: :>Seems like this might be an excuse to correct what I view as a historical :>mistake in the Assembler, namely the precedence of native :>instructions/extended mnemomics over macros. This precedence means that :>every time IBM introduces a new instruction or extended mnemonic they :>introduce a backward incompatibility and risk breaking someone's code. :>This is bad for customers and bad for IBM as it paints them into a corner :>where they're afraid to add stuff because of the backward compatibility :>issues. :> :>I understand that there might be implementation issues -- I suspect that :>the assembler doesn't currently scan all macro libraries and build a :>look-aside table of all macros in those libraries, a technique that would :>probably be required to allow macro precedence over native :>instructions/extended mnemonics. I also understand that additional :>controls would be required so that system macros, say, could insist on :>getting native instructions rather than macros, but this doesn't seem :>daunting. There also might be an issue of grandfathering existing :>instructions -- it wouldn't surprise me if someone somewhere has a dead :>LLGF or whatever macro laying around in some library somewhere, just :>waiting to pounce. Again, controls over what level of instructions have :>precedence over macros wouldn't be a daunting thing to implement. :> :>Whether any of this is worth it depends on one's view of the assembler. If :>the view is that it's gone about as fer as it can go, and there aren't :>likely to be any/many new instructions/mnemonics then none of this is :>worth the trouble. If, on the other hand, the view is that there will be a :>steady trickle of new instructions/mnemonics over the course of the next :>10 years, maybe it's worth slaying this precedence dragon once and for all. :> :>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:33:24 -0400, Shane G <[email protected]> wrote: :> :>>> I think a SHARE requirement would be a useful start to discussing :>>> additional extended mnemonics. I'd follow that up with a HLASM RFE :>>> request. :>> :>> I must admit to being somewhat bewildered as to what prompted Ed to :>> initiate :>> this discussion at all. As John E intimated, I reckon this cat has well :>> and :>> truly scarpered. :>> _everybody_ will have different (lack of) standards for this ... :>> :>> Shane ... -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
