> >
> > that means, for this bright Monday morning - I'll have to enter a bug.
> >
> But here, I disagree with HLASM's behavior and believe DASM is doing
> the right thing.
>
> Which bug will you enter?
>
> -- gil
>
The bug goes in with as "we aren't the same as HLASM".
It's surprising how far-reaching an incompatibility will be, so
when we strive to be compatible (i.e. as 'the same' as we can be.)
In some cases though, when we think "oh - this isn't right, even
though it's what HLASM does" we will be compatible and then have
an option to "do the reasonable thing" (or, if the incompatibility
is reported by a customer, we'll ask them if they want the option.)
One such option that has made it to the light of the general
public is our -fenhanced_equ option (that, among other things, allows
for further EQU processing during the lookahead phase than HLASM
supports.)
In this case, the default is to be 'the same' as HLASM.
Then, it's what we call a "your gun, your foot" situation. Since
we have given the option, if you enable it and your ASM code
doesn't assemble with HLASM, then it was your own foot you shot
with your own gun :-)
- Dave Rivers -
--
[email protected] Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
