Hi Steves, and Paul,
Ok, I don't want this argument to get circular
Why not just specify -1
As in:
CLI HERE,-1
CLFI 1,-1
Ok, much easier to code CLFI 1,4X'FF'
Yes...I know why or why not
I have enough support for an RFE to be created, this will probably go to a
vote in the UK and then be submitted to IBM. It will be up to IBM to judge
the cost/benefit factors
Let me restate, whatever form the final RFE takes it will not affect current
code, though it may produce warning messages not previous produced, eg. for
LHI 1,X'FFFFFFFF' which has aleady been discussed to death
Melvyn Maltz.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Smith" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: HLASM "Anomaly"
On 3/20/2017 20:58, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Please don't reply with "Subject:...Digest..."
Sorry... I wish I remembered to do that, but I usually don't.
On 2017-03-20, at 17:45, Steve Smith wrote:
Two's-complement is an amazingly great way for binary computers to store
negative numbers. It is not so great for humans to read or write.
First
of all, you have to know where the sign bit is, and X expressions are
ambiguous. If you watch carefully, you'll see that HLASM (almost)
always
left-fills to 32 bits (with 0s), so if you intend to specify -1, then
you
must write X'FFFFFFFF'.
Why not just write -1?
I would. You could. This was for those who really, really, want to pound
the square peg into the round hole.
It would have been nice if different conventions were chosen back in the
dark ages, instead of conflating X strings with hex numbers. But it
isn't
nice, and you might as well learn how it works, and learn to live with
it.
The consequences of that have pervaded this thread.
Sure, and there's value in discussing them. But for generating RFEs and
requirements, it's appropriate (it's necessary) to consider the costs as
well as the benefits. My take (and implication) is that the costs vastly
outweigh the benefits.
-- gil
sas
