> O my. Are you subscribing to some arcane definition of Basic Assembler > Language that requires hand-punching cards on a Jacquard loom or something?
No. RYFM. > I'd suggest that it appears you've never actually supported code using CMS > UPDATE, ROTF,LMAO! I'd suggest that you haven't a clue about what anybody else's experience is. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Phil Smith III [li...@akphs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:07 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OS HLASM: EQU for statement labels Metz scrawled: >> (not writing much BAL any more). >I doubt that you ever were, or that you've even seen it. O my. Are you subscribing to some arcane definition of Basic Assembler Language that requires hand-punching cards on a Jacquard loom or something? Give me a break. >> I was taught not to put labels on instructions for the same reason, though >> it was because we were using CMS UPDATE at the time, >Non sequitor. There's nothing in UPDATE that interferes with using labels on >instructions. BTDT,GTTS (no scars, just the tee shirt) That's "sequitur", if we're being pedantic. Of course there's nothing that *interferes* with it. It's just that hygiene means you change as little as possible, so the same issue applies as with physical cards: if there's an instruction on a label and you need to add something between the label and that instruction, you have to change more. This was particularly true when hand-crafting UPDATE decks, and thus became less of an issue once XEDIT and UPDATE mode came along, but good hygiene continued. If we're going to continue the theme of being rude, I'd suggest that it appears you've never actually supported code using CMS UPDATE, or you'd know this. Or maybe you were just poorly taught.
