I would argue that PoPs is one of the few technical publications that
you will hardly ever find any defects in. It's less pages than the C++
standard and concise. The issue I have is it's a little bit dusty. Some
of the multi-programming
examples state that a sequence number may take days to wrap around when
in the modern era it may be hours, minutes or seconds.
On 18/11/2014 8:00 PM, Anthony Rudd wrote:
Unfortunately, I missed the start of this thread.
The poor design of the PoPs is one reason why I wrote my z/Architecture for
application programmers book, not that I make any claims of providing an
equivalent. The major difficulty that I find with the PoPs is the difficulty in
finding the appropriate information for a particular variant of an instruction;
for example, the appropriate details for a particular Translate One/Two
instruction are located at various points of the description. To improve
clarity, I made wide use of tables in my book that enabled me to keep the size
of the book to less than 400 pages. Another weakness of the PoPs is the lack of
examples for many of the more recent instructions.
Anthony Rudd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
