🚀 go-pugleaf

John,

100 characters would work for me. Abandoning the sequence number and adding
space would even be a good compromise at this point. While I love the ISPF
sequence numbers at the start of a line the sequence numbers at the start of
line have been optional for years in xedit.

A prefix area for block command in ISPF isn't all that necessary with the
use of a cursor to identify large areas on a screen to move.

I'm as attached as anoyone to my memories of punched cards, dumb waiter
elevators for expedited runs but this is, after all the new millenium.

It's time we had an ide type of coding environment on the mainframe just for
the sake of useability and it is quite feasible at this point to have a
native mainframe gui editor and still maintain the utilities and other items
that make the mainframe such a great place to run and develop software. A
gui editor and expansion of the space on a line for assembler would go well
together.

BTW I'm an ISPF bigot though I love xedit also.

Paul Hanrahan

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:17 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Assembly coding guidelines


> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Fairchild
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:57 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Assembly coding guidelines
>
>
> In a message dated 9/3/2005 8:40:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> p_hanrahan@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> >The  area for a sequence number and then a code to identify the
> >programmer
> digs
> >into available space for comments.  ...  but then with  extended
> >opcodes the space on a line is  reduced.
>
>
>
> Which is another reason why I still confine my statement labels to
> eight characters, just as I was forced to do for my first several
> decades of Assembler coding by the primitive Assemblers of those
> ancient times, even though now more modern Assemblers will let me add
> underscores and extend the names almost as far  as the eye can see.
>
> Bill Fairchild
>

To me, the next step in HLASM intelligent design would be to abandon the
archaic 80 column card format entirely. Why is it there any more? Or course,
a 200 character line would likely be enough to infuriate any good HLASM
programmer. But a nice 100 character line could be useful.

John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
UICI Insurance Center
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected
by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this
message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is
strictly prohibited.