On 2018-08-27, at 06:20:40, Peter Relson wrote:
> <snip>
>> I've never had the slightest need to use the labels generated in the
> MF=L form. Who does? They're not documented. I'll grant that they can
> probably be considered self-documenting, but is there a reasonable
> guarantee the labels won't be changed in a new release? The MF=E
> expansions don't use them (thank goodness), ...
>>
> The doc (and Peter Relson) seem to say they can and should be used that
> way.
> </snip>
>
> I'm not positive which "that way" referred to. I don't think I said that
> the labels produced by the list form ought to be used. The interface is
> the macro. Anything else is not supported (but might well work).
>
I apologize for any misattribution or misunderstanding. I imagined:
ANYMAC MF=(L,AXXX) Defines AXXX
...
ANYMAC MF=(E,AXXX) Refers to AXXX defined above
If I understand correctly, a similar Example ought to appear in the
Users Guide to clarify the use for the OP of this thread. (Everyone
is supposed to read the Users Guide.)
> <snip>
> I'd prefer staying with tradition and coding its name in column
> one, for legibility.
> </snip>
>
> FWIW, I suppose that you could code
> LABEL_TRADITIONAL THEMACRO MF=(L,LABEL_NEWFORM),PLISTVER=MAX
> and you could use THEMACRO MF=(E,LABEL_TRADITIONAL)
> if you must (but the "two labels" would have to be unique)
>
> For the list form, you would land with
> LABEL_TRADITIONAL EQU LABEL_NEWFORM
> LABEL_NEWFORM DS 0D
> ...
I'm imagining something like:
MACRO
&LBL WRAPLIST &NAME,&A1,&A2,...
&NAME MF=(L,&LBL),&A1,&A2,...
MEND
For this sort of thing, I truly miss the POSIX shell constructs:
"shift", which discards one or more leading parameters, and
"$@", which formats the remaining parameters (think DOUBLE)
to be passed to another command.
> <snip>
> I notice that for older macros with "M=L" the parameter
> descriptions are in table form; for newer macros with "MF=(L,list addr)"
> the descriptions are in outline form.
> </snip>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you provide an example? I think of
> the syntax diagram being a table (when it's not RR-track), but the
> parameter descriptions being textual. ...
>
I stand corrected; I didn't read thoroughly. For IEATDUMP, I see:
o No RR-track (Blessedly, I suppose.)
o "Syntax" Looks like a spreadsheet; I called that "table".
o "Parameters"
The parameters are explained as follows:
...
The parameters and subparameters are variously indented. I called that
"outline".
So the "spreadsheet" replaces the "RR-track" (which wouldn't fit on
the page. Or several pages.)
-- gil
