Tom I forgot to mention before a case among the examples offered in the thread - specifically, to give credit where credit is due, from Mr Metz himself in person - where use of the length attribute in the instruction *does* offer some assistance to, say, a "newbie", in understanding what is going on. That was the other instruction which was the *second* "bone of contention" over which we have had a right old gnawing:
UNPK HEXWORK(L'HEXWORK+1), BINWORK(L'BINWORK+1) The attribute (sic) of the length coding which benefits understanding is that the desired result requires that length in the instruction is one more that the length of the field - for both the destination and the source fields. Seeing the length coded this way emphasises the point in a way that coding 9 and 5 respectively would not. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Marchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 06 November, 2006 2:42 PM Subject: Re: Assembler question On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:37:50 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
