I always wanted to give a programming course where you drove the class's applications till they broke (perhaps bad data, or running multiple instances in parallel). The class would spend 5 minutes per problem.
1. You got one mark for every problem you identified in someone else's code 2. You got one mark for every person who identified the bugs in your code. Of course this would not work in practice. A timing problem is much harder to diagnose than a bad parameter. Going back 40 years we had a teacher who used base registers called "flopsy", "mopsy", "Peter" On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 12:15, Robin Vowels <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2021-06-17 19:15, Rob Scott wrote: > >>> When it comes time to change the length of a token, or locate usage > >>> occurrences, I would much prefer to hunt for Token_Len rather than > >>> determine usage context for some numeric. I would also probably feel > >>> more confident about the results. > > > > Absolutely - let ASMA90 do the work. Magic numbers are a real > > maintenance head-ache. > > > > If there is a defined “field” and the number reflects its length, then > > I would use something like “LHI Rx,L’Token”. I feel that this helps > > with the self-commenting coding style. > > > > A minor nit, but I prefer something like “LHI Rx,value” to “LA > > Rx,value” as the implication of “LA” is that you are dealing with an > > address rather than a constant numerical value. > > Before LHI, you could write your own macro, to give you > LA 4,7 > and at the same time include a check on the magnitude of the constant. > Also, it could deal with signed constants. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
