<snip>
I just thought it was odd that the continued comments column is different for
an instruction vs a macro.
</snip>
Perhaps the difference is that the data in column 16 of the continuation line
of the macro invocation is actually part of the macro invocation, not a comment.
Consider:
MACRO
M &A=2,&B=3
LHI &A,&B
MEND
With
M A=1, this is <* in col 72>
B=1 a comment
Which is the same as M A=1,B=1
M A=1 this is
a comment <col 16>
which gets
ASMA432W Continuation statement may be in error - comma omitted from continued
statement.
and
M A=1 this is
a comment <col 17>
which is fine.
The definition appears to let the assembler help with a common trivial error
(at the cost of minor annoyance if you really wanted a comment),
While letting you provide a nicely commented macro invocation (perhaps putting
a comment on each line with keyword=value) such as
M A=1, Set the A parameter to ... <* in col 72>
B=2, Set the B parameter to ... <* in col 72>
...
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
