Alan Altmark 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'
So why does the Assembler even bother calculating
length values? I disagree on two points:
* Never use literals; always define a constant
and reference the label on the constant
* Never code explicit lengths unless you are
not using the value generated by the Assembler
But I realize these are points of style / preference /
local standards. I do not intend to start a holy war,
these are just my preferences.
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.
Well, there ya' go, the holy war has begun. But let's not
persist. We let our opinions be known and now we move on.
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
