Jon,

As I generally only play with old versions of VM I don't have ISPF. In old 
versions of VM and line numbers on the assembler source are integral to the way 
the system is built. 
So the build process keeps each change as a separate source update and the base 
source is never updated. The VM UPDATE command uses the line numbers to work 
out how to update and assemble the source..
In later versions of VM XEDIT will handle all of this under the covers so you 
just see the merged updates...

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Perryman
> Sent: 11 December 2017 18:44
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Any real need for sequence numbers in 73-80 any more?
> 
> ISPF edit's compare command has existed for many years and uses SUPERC
> under the covers. Forget taking source off platform and give it a try. One of
> the options is number of lines for syncing. If there is a problem with syncing
> after changed lines, then look at the options. It worked great for code
> reviews. Regards, Jon.
> 
>     On Monday, December 11, 2017 8:11 AM, Dave Wade
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>  If you have "old source" and find "new updates" and have removed the
> sequence numbers, then you probably can't easily work out how they
> applied...
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown
> > Sent: 11 December 2017 14:21
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Any real need for sequence numbers in 73-80 any more?
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Steve Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This has been discussed and cussed many many times before.  What's
> > new?
> > >
> >
> > ​Sorry, I don't remember that. I didn't think to search the archives.
> > I will do that now and ask everyone's pardon.​
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove 
> > it.
> >
> > Maranatha! <><
> > John McKown
> 
> 

Reply via email to