On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: > Ouch. SO true. >
Yes. In this same vein, but a bit more seriously, why don't we start using RI-programming (for Relative & Immediate) or RelImm-programming. Because there is _no_ way that I can think of to write _useful_ code which does not use at least a few base+displacement instructions. At the very least for the incoming parameter list. Well, maybe a random() type program could be written without using any base+displacement instructions if it did some sort of manipulation of the data returned by the STCKE instruction instead of having a seed and basing the current result on the previous one. > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've seen a lot of baseless programming in my life. Had no idea you were > > talking about registers in assembler. <g> > > > > Charles > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Phil Smith > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:05 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Base-less programming > > > > Apologies for those who saw this post and said "WTF?" - wrong list. Hey, > > it's Wednesday. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
