On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:04:23 -0500 Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:>On Tuesday, 11/07/2006 at 03:29 CET, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:>wrote:
:>> I think you're correct; it's a matter of style. Probably the programmer
:>is
:>> abiding by some sort of house rule that says if you can't rely upon the
:>> referenced variables to provide the correct length then use the length
:>> attribute in order to show the relationship between the length of the
:>> referenced variable and the desired length by using a plus or a minus
:>and a
:>> constant. Where you have an MVC and a literal, it looks a bit stupid but
:>a
:>> house rule is a house rule. It's my opinion that a simple number
:>suffices
:>> because the length of the literal is obviously the length that has to be
:>> used and it's right there in front of you.
:>Best practice: MVC TARGET(6),=XL6'402021212121'
:>Note the length modifer. This surfaces both the exact length of the
:>source and the exact length of the move. People who omit the length
:>modifer are sentenced to the 9th level of hell for all eternity. Or even
:>longer.
Once did something similar
MVC TARGET(6),=XL6'4002021212121'
It would be nice if the assembler generated a warning if the literal length is
too short for the specified data.
--
Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
