On 25 October 2013 17:59, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob's macro FOOBAR is easy to improve, as in >
I don't disagree yet, but what's the improvement? It's a lot more code (though still less than what I inherited) and I agree the mnote is more verbose. But does it serve a purpose? Maybe I've tried too much C that I rarely feel helped by the compiler messages but instead go look at the source and figure out where I screwed up. With HLASM the messages rarely describe my mistake, at best I can see why he thought that way... I should likely do better than an mnote with "that's wrong, go look again" but to double the amount of code (and likely mistakes) just for eye candy isn't my first choice. Could I redesign the FOOBAR macro, I would have opted for a scheme that enforces the semantics better, like FOOBAR B,17 Rob
