Ref: Your note of Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:16:15 -0400 Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Re LLIxx: thanks!
I'm told it will be corrected in the next edition, along with some other similar cases. I guess that next edition means for the next generation of IBM Z, so don't hold your breath! > Re PoPs: I didn't really mean to sound pedantic, it's just a curiosity of > mine. In the official title, "Operation" is not plural (nor has it ever > been as far as I can tell). Nevertheless, if everyone wants to call it > PoPs, the fact that it isn't strictly logical doesn't matter much. English > is like that. Pedantic is not necessarily a bad attribute for an assembler programmer. I must admit that I had failed to note that the "s" is presumably from the fact that Principles is plural, not Operation, making the abbreviation plural to match the original title, which I agree is not very logical. Looking back at notes from long ago, it appears that it was usually called the POP, which is also how it appears in the 1985 edition of Mike Cowlishaw's IBM Jargon Dictionary, although even back then some people were calling it "POps" with varying case. Jonathan Scott, HLASM IBM Hursley, UK
