On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:29 AM, [email protected] <
[email protected]> wrote:
> One must remember that the the machine (CPU) does not care
> about how the source looks. Once the machine gets the code,
> it is just opcodes.
>
> There is no 'SET SOURCE CODE IS BEAUTIFUL' instruction to make it
> run faster.
>
Hum, sounds like we need an RFE on HLASM {grin}
>
> FB 80 files, with or without sequence numbers, work for me as
> a source repository.
>
And for most others.
>
> Trying to solve a problem that is not a problem,
> (or improve on perfection) uses energy that is better
> spent someplace else.
>
Ah, now here's the rub. It is, in a sense, a "problem" for me. A minor
one, I'll grant. I dislike sequence numbers in 73-80 because I do a lot of
my HLASM source coding using vim on Linux. And it is a bit of a bother to
manually put an 8 digit number which I must manually "generate" into
columns 73-80. Mainly due to the need to put in all the blanks to "pad out"
the end of the record.
Hum, don't a lot of the new development tools, such as RD/z (or whatever)
from IBM (or whomever) or Topaz from Compuware, use the eclipse editor on a
Windows desktop for editing? Does anybody here use these? Is it easy to
maintain 73-80 sequence numbers? If so, perhaps I need to learn eclipse.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Paul
>
--
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove
it.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown
