That sounds different from what I asked about. With new syntax there's no
conflict with existing code. Something like the below would have no ambiguity:
IILH R1,[DC AL1(C' ',0)]
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf
of Jonathan Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 8:01 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Complex immediate operands
External Message: Use Caution
It's been requested before, but rejected, as the idea of allowing DC-like
constants directly within a numeric expression is obviously incompatible with
the existing language. For example, this is already valid:
AL1 EQU 1
LA 0,AL1(2,3)
Of course, in theory one could have different types of numeric expressions in
different contexts, but that would be a huge and impractical change for very
little benefit.
Jonathan Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> On Behalf
Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: 30 March 2026 12:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: Complex immediate operands
I use 16 bit immediate operand instructions to load pad bytes. Typically I code
X'4000' or 256*C'0'' for a blank pad, but it would be more readable if there
were syntax to treat AL1(C' ',0) as a DC operand. Is there an open requirement
along those lies?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
