On Apr 16, 2022, at 17:32:03, Steve Smith wrote: > > Another alternative is to OPSYN delete the new instructions that conflict. > I think that will work: I rtfm, but not tested. > A group I worked with did that and also used OPTABLE, partly to ensure That our code worked with downlevel customer hardware.
> Personally, I think adding :MAC would just be more work. You might as well > rename the macro. > Adding ":MAC" could be done with an Edit macro: one CHANGE command for each of the announced new instructions; manual tweaks for such as column 72 overflow. Or, FLOWASM its your friend. That leaves the option of using the new instructions in the future. > While I really find gratuitous usage of national character prefixes to be > ugly, it does tend to future-proof macros named with such, as I think we > can assume IBM won't ever invent an instruction mnemonic that starts with > one. > Do any mnemonics use numeric digits? Is it IBM's intention never to use digits in mnemonics? (But at one time IBM seemed committed never to use mnemonics longer than four letters.) > Anyway, nothing here looks nearly as bad as the infamous introduction of > the MSG operation. > I don't know that one. Did IBM step on its own toes? -- gil
