Jon, for me, it is a simple fact my BRANCH_ON macro makes my life a lot
easier. Which is what macros are for.
And, what "obvious abend or bad branch"?
If you are talking about the branch to A&SYSNDX if the value is too high
or too low and the programmer did not specify where to branch in such a
condition, then that is not a design flaw, but an intentionally coded
abend.
If you thing you see another 'flaw', then point it out. I never said my
code was perfect. Maybe I did not think of some error situation.
Tony Thigpen
Jon Perryman wrote on 3/9/19 4:32 PM:
This demonstrates my point that people treat AREAD too trivially and use it
when it's not necessary. Apparently no one really looked at the BRANCH_ON macro
which is a production macro. There is an obvious abend or bad branch that the
assembler would have diagnosed that AREAD hid.
Tony, you are a good programmer but you ignored what I said. Surely you don't
believe GBLC and SETC are complicated. I think you are falling into the
Motivated reasoning trap because you want to believe in AREAD so strongly.
|
|
| |
Motivated reasoning
The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification
strategy which is used to mitigate cog...
|
|
|
you mentioned earlier something to the effect: "What if the macro
fails due to mis-use? It may cause the assembler to dump." > If you want it
'safer' just use a lower ACTR value within the macro.
Assemble & RUN the following code and tell me it doesn't abend. Don't bother
defining the branch label in the program. While I don't have MVS, I'm positive it
will assemble with RC=0 and produce an abend (S0Cx - invalid instruction). It
should have failed at assembly.pgm ENTER LA R15,0 BRANCH_ON (R15) LBL00
LBL04-----------------------
RETURN
Code a replacement macro using your method. You will find that macro
will be much more complicated as how it handles the A&SYSNDX and
C&SYSNDX labels. You now have to use GLBx values to pass information.
"GBLC &MYCOMPANY_BRANCH_ON" and "&MYCOMPANY_BRANCH_ON SETC '&SYSNDX'" is not
complicated. Anyone who truly finds it complicated should not use AREAD.
BRANCH_ON just makes life simpler in it's current form.
How does BRANCH_ON with AREAD make life simpler because I still can't see it?
I'm all for simplicity and strongly encourage it. 20 lines to support AREAD
(including serious bugs) seems complicated compared to 4 simple SETC/GBLC
lines. I've shown that usage is the same. If a single invocation simplifies
life, then my previous suggestion using BRTABLE=(LABEL00,LABEL04) would be 4
simple lines.
Regards, Jon.
