> It worked but my co-workers were apoplectic to see definitions > appear in the midst of executable code.
Why? I rely heavily on generating EQU, to say nothing of LOCTR-wrapped constants and code. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 10:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SV: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol On 5/4/24 22:36:27, Ed Jaffe wrote: >> ... >> But we had a register equates macro that came to conflict with >> IATYREGS when we added JES3 support. Many JES3 headers used >> IATYREGS conditioned on setting ofa GBLB. > > All of the IATYxxxx macros have similar conditioning, thus allowing duplicate > (usually embedded) mapping macro invocations without assembler errors. > . By that time I was not an Assembler coder but a sympathetic spectator. The product was a couple years old before we added JES3 support. Our coding conventions required that each Assembler module COPY a standard module prologue containing register equates, branch around eyecatcher, etc. We could remove the register equates and substitute IATYREGS but we feared that might introduce conflicts with established non-JES3 Earlier, I had been assigned to create a functional macro which required some definitions: EQU, DSECT, ... I coded that to MEXIT immediately on repeated calls. Then I went a step further: I added a call to my definitions macro to my functional macro, avoiding explicit prerequisites. It worked but my co-workers were apoplectic to see definitions appear in the midst of executable code. That may have contributed to the brevity of my term a an Assembler programmer. -- gil
