I don't think that anyone has mentioned this point but I think that all languages with which I am familiar (and that support data declarations of some sort) behave the same way. COBOL, C, etc. -- all prohibit duplicate (truly duplicate, after qualification) labels, referenced or not.
Rexx does not declare variables, so X = 3; X = 4 is not a conflict, just a reassignment. What about Rexx procedure labels? Does Rexx object to FOO: blah blah ... FOO: blah blah I don't know. What does Python do? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of João Reginato Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol Just for comodity and I can't see a reason for this error. Eventually I use to remember new updates with the actual date or my name for example. And using the column one for that is easier. Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024, 08:09, Steve Smith <[email protected]> escreveu: > OK, that could be done. It would potentially generate far more error > messages for essentially one error. I see no reason or value in that > approach. I also think most programmers would strongly object. > > Do you have some reason for needing to define duplicate, yet unreferenced > symbols? > > sas > > On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:57 PM João Reginato <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I can't see it as an additional code if it is already checking the > > duplicates. It could only show an error where/when/if the duplicated > field > > is referenced. Simple > > > > >
