🚀 go-pugleaf

> Yes and no.  It's certainly the most accurate, but some of the
> instruction descriptions leave much to be desired.  For example, if
> you happen to have POO (I always liked that abbreviation :-) handy,
> look up "TR" and see if you the description gives you any clue as to
> what the command is actually intended for.  It's perfectly accurate,
> just not what you'd expect.
>
> TR is my favorite fractured description in POO; what's yours?

OK, I give up.  What's the gimmick?  Here's what my POO (370) says:

"The bytes of the first operand are used as eight-bit arguments to
reference a list designated by the second-operand address.  Each
function byte selected from the list replaces the corresponding
argument in the first operand."

That's only the first paragraph, but the rest of the description
is peripheral rather than central.  Perhaps I'm being dense here,
but this IS just exactly what I expect;  that's what TR does.

If you are looking for an indication of what the instruction can
be used for, following the description are some programming notes
which include suggestions of how to use TR.  In addition, there is
an example (such as it is) which further describes purposes to
which TR might be put.

This said, I would suggest that POO be used only in conjunction
with a text, not by itself (stand-alone?).  It is a good reference,
but like many IBM manuals, "you can't read it until you know what
it says."

Michael Stack
Northern Illinois University