In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/06/2006
at 01:37 PM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Another exhausting post from what can only be deliberate
>misunderstandings.
Well, if you claim that you are deliberately misunderstanding, I can't
prove otherwise.
>Again, by not quoting everything, you have rather deceitfully
>obscured what I was saying.
The fact that you are too stupid to edit your messages so that they
say something sensible does not mak me deceitful. The fact that you
want me to quote extraneous material simply demonstrates your lack of
understanding.
>The missing part was "obviously has length 6."
The assembler does not work on what is obvious to you; to works on
what is actually supplied to it.
>Some jokes only bear telling once.
Yes, I would expect your code to be a joke.
>I will now make my point "in words of one syllable" so it cannot be
>misunderstood.
I didn't misunderstand. You were wrong.
>What I am taking issue with is going to the trouble of using a
>symbolic expression for the length.
You could have done that without making false statements about how the
assembler operates.
>when the instruction contains a literal which necessarily indicates
>the length.
There you go again.
>And, being a literal, it would be crass stupidity to be relying on
>data in a following field in the case that the length used by the
>instruction didn't precisely match the length of the literal.
It would also be crass stupidity to assume that someone was doing that
when in fact they weren't.
>What I consider stupid is that the number 6,
>consisting of one simple character, was not specified but something
>which the Assembler has to work out is 6, consisting of 8
>complicated characters.
The fact that you are too stupid to understand the reason for the
symbolic expression reflects on you, not on the author. Code with
"magic numbers" is error prone. The real problem with that code is the
literal, which is not symbolically tied to the field length.
>There is no benefit;
Wrong again. The benefit accrues when someone has to change a field
size.
>I do hope that's clear.
What is clear is that you are a pompous ignoramus with delusions of
adequacy.
>My point is actually made later on where I indicate that the UNPK
>instruction is obliged to do more work than we actually need done.
What it does is quite minimal, and all of it is necessary for its
intended use.
>but it's not what we actually need;
It's precisely what we need for its intended purpose. The fact that it
is also useful for binary to hex conversions is gravy.
>plus a bit more we don't need.
We need that bit more when we are converting zoned decimal to packed
decimal, which is the purpose for which the instruction was designed.
>Because it necessarily does a bit more than we actually need
For conversion to hex, which is *not* what it was designed for.
>we have the messy "+1" in the length fields
All of the SS instructions have lengths offset by one. That allows you
to specify larger lengths, at the cost of not being able to specify a
length of zero.
>and we have the worry about the byte following the destination field.
That's because it's designed to convert zoned decimal to packed
decimal, and therefor must treat the last byte differently.
>Once again the too restricted quotation distorts my point. Is this
>deliberate point-scoring or a genuine blind spot?
No. It's deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
>Read this again:
It's just as wrong as the first time I read it.
>Now isn't it blindingly obvious that there's a bit of
>anthropomorphising going on here, a familiar dodge for someone
>attempting to teach in a picturesque way?
Yes, almost as blindingly obvious as the programming errors that such
anthropomorphisms invariably lead to. But you knew that.
>You had the temerity some time ago when commenting on my posts to
>imply that they quoted too much.
They do. And you had the temerity too call me dishonest just because
you were too dunderheaded to understand my point.
>It's better than quoting too little
No.
>Let's recall the whole again:
Let's not.
>Here is some text and a table
How about quoting instead the text from the decimal instructions as to
which signs they are capable of generating? Or would that damage the
point that you are ineptly trying to make?
Don't bother to reply - I won't see it.
*PLONK*
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
