On 2019-01-30, at 11:02:23, Dave Rivers wrote: > > Regarding the &SYS_HLASM_DATE option, it seems like that doesn’t work > too well for us (the Dignus assembler) as we different maintenance approaches. > > So this doesn’t help with “portable” code between the two assemblers. > Ouch! You might just need to fake it.
> I don’t expect that to be a major concern to IBM, but I was wondering if a > more > abstract approach might be better? Something along the lines of other > feature-test > symbols in other languages? > > That is, when facility X is available, perhaps &SYS_HLASM_FACILITY_X could be > defined? > > With this approach, the user has to know that a new facility was available on > a particular > date for example, which PTFs were available at that date. > > What if the user applies a later PTF and not an earlier one? And, the > facility in question > is only available with the earlier one? > Hmmm... I notice that HLASM prints a PTF level in page headers. This suggests that information is in a CSECT updated by every PTF. That, in turn would require that each PTF either PRE or SUP its predecessor, so, transitively all its predecessons -- a completely linear sequence of service. -- gil
