Okay. Not picturing it exactly but okay. I like mine better <g> but don't like it very much.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 9:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: EQU * considered harmful On 2018-08-04, at 09:21:14, Charles Mills wrote: > > The HLASM team's dance card is already pretty full but you can certainly > picture something like that in HLASM: > > J *+3I > > Meaning "here + 3 instructions." 'I' is perhaps not the best indicator > because it is easily confused with a digit, although J *+n seldom ends in a > legitimate 1. > > Yes, the assembler would have to do look-ahead. Yes, HLASM would have to > impose some limits and caveats. > > I'm not crazy about it. It solves the "what if the instruction length > changes, such as from A to AG?" problem, but not the "what if someone > hastily and with inadequate thought inserts or deletes an instruction?" > problem. > Knuth's scheme wasn't relative bytes, nor instructions, nor even source code lines. It was an actual coded label with very local scope. No hazard from inserting instructions.
