Re: Who the bloody eff still codes CABEQ in this century?!?!?!?

[Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx>]

Makes sense.  But, since this particular developer doesn't care much for
using subroutines, it's not as much a concern here.  <sigh>

- Dan

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Jeff Young <jyoung0950@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dan,
> While you are at it, how about the CAS* op-codes.
> Those are even *more* obscure.
>
> :)
>
> Jeff Young
> Sr. Programmer Analyst
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > What are the chances we could get IBM / Barbara to get the compiler to
> puke
> > on any of the CAB* opcodes?  At a minimum, the compiler should post a
> > message requiring a reply to the question, "How many years before you
> > retire?" and, if the response is greater than 1, tell the user to drop
> the
> > bloody CAB* opcodes and try again.
> >
> > Perhaps less complex is to just update SEU one last time that flags any
> > CAB* opcode as a syntax error.  Cuz you damn well know they're not using
> > RDi!
> >
> > Yes, there are other opcodes, including cousin GOTO (so flag that as a
> > syntax error as well), but CAB* opcodes are so obscure, I spend a minute
> or
> > two just trying to understand what is trying to be accomplished.
> >
> > Is it 5:00 yet?
> >
> > <Rant /done>
> >
> > - Dan