I think that there are [at least] two usefully separated issues here. I looked yesterday at a macro definition I wrote 16 years ago that I still use but had not updated in the interval. As a part of its bullet-proofing it conditionally removes some framing single quotes from input values in the old, long-winded way instead of using the HLASM's comparatively new DEQUOTE bif. I fixed it to use DEQUOTE in three places, and that was appropriate, but it would be unreasonable to expect IBM to undertake to retrofit all of its macros to use DEQUOTE wherever it could be used to advantage.
I come now to Tony Harminc's example: <begin extract> But SETRP generates a NOPR with an expression (related to the SDWA, I think) obviously intended (and I think commented) to fail if the length is not 0. However HLASM doesn't think the expression is a likely register value - a legal one, certainly - but still worth a warning if you have registers EQUated with the GR or GR32 or GR64 option. </end extract> It is very different. Register equates are ubiquitous. What we thus have in this example is no or inadequate testing, and that is not defensible. None of us expects IBM code to be error-free. None of us writes such code. We do expect that IBM code will have been tested, in effect that such errors as we find in it will be subtle and not crudely obvious ones; and in this expectation we are now often disappointed. 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
