Sorry Tony, I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) not to be insulting.
You recommended to the op that he should consider AREAD. With less than 5% of
macro's being improved by AREAD, what did you notice that AREAD needed to be a
consideration? I'm all for using AREAD when it's needed but it's used too often
when there are better assembler implementations.
How is your BRANCH_ON macro improved by AREAD? You chose BRANCH_ON because it
was a simpler macro but you have correctly coded AREAD macro's. Why show an
incorrectly coded AREAD macro instead of using a correctly coded AREAD macro?
Do you believe John Erlich would have recommended using AREAD to build a simple
branch table in this way? Do you believe he would have approved of your
implementation AREAD in BRANCH_ON?
I'm sure you could code it correctly but my point is that AREAD is not trivial
where as there are trivial assembler solutions in many cases. If you are going
to use advocate the use of AREAD, then it needs to be used correctly and when
it's truly beneficial.
Regards, Jon.
On Friday, March 8, 2019, 2:00:50 AM PST, Tony Thigpen <[email protected]>
wrote:
So, your statement comes down to "Don't use AREAD because it's not HLASM."
Considering that the one that told me to use AREAD, including providing
the base examples, was John Ehrman, I think I will take his opinion over
yours.
I said this was a simple version. Some of my more complex ones use INDEX
and such to make it more error proof. I just posted a simple example so
the OP could have something to show what I was talking about.
