Sounds like a plausible answer! My guess would be that IBM thought assembler programmers sufficiently Intelligent so as to avoid doing that! On Oct 23, 2013 8:31 PM, "Paul Gilmartin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-10-23 17:54, Kurt LeBesco wrote: > > I've been reading quietly and wondering how the dialog drifted off to > rexx > > and pl1 land. Can we get back on topic? Thanks > > > OK. Pure HLASM. I've long wondered why division by zero is permitted > in arithmetic expressions when otherwise overflows (even in division) > are reported as errors. > > The only rationale I can think of (and a poor one) is that it was > initially an implementation oversight that was so rapidly codified > by use that when it was discovered no repair was feasible. > > -- gil >
