On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:44:41 +0000, Martin Ward wrote: >Given that 2X'FF' generates the same two bytes as X'FFFF', >there is no reason why we should not be allowed to replace >the latter by the former [in an immediate expression].
Maybe so, but I don't see it as a significant limitation. Certainly not one that is worth the effort of making HLASM behave the way you think it "should". I work as an assembler programmer and I can't remember a time when I needed to code an immediate operand that could have been specified that way if it were possible. -- Tom Marchant
