In my original post I distinguished what Peter recommended and what I recommend sharply, and I gave my reasons for my preference.
There are other reasons, many of them too arcane and detail-ridden for ready discussion here, for my views; but the notion that I somehow misrepresented Peter's position is nomsense. He repudiated by notional paraphrase, which he had every right to do; and I acknowledged his action. What is perhaps more important is that the conventions for marking and processing data-only objects are inadequate. The old name 'load module' had the great merit that it did not implicitly reject the notion that one might wish to LOAD a table. The new one, 'program object', unfortunately does so. As I have already made clear in an earlier post, I make heavy use of composite tables that contain metadata, specifically doubleword relocatable ADCONs. Peter's contention that I can mark a such program object as AMODE(24) and still LOAD it above the bar is entirely correct. I now tested it myself to make sure that it is. The wisdom of making use of the freedom to do so is nevertheless open to question. I think it is hubris. Others do not, and they are free to use AMODE(24) or AMODE(31) in this way. I am not a policeman. I should not wish to enforce a ban on their doing so even if, improbably, I could. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
