From: address@nospicedham.not.available   
      
   Alex,   
      
   > Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The problem is the programmer's,   
   > not the assembler's. The languages I mean are human ones.   
      
   Than your statement is stil nonsense.   We *all* program in the same   
   programming language, regardless of what the persons mothertongue is (fringe   
   cases like stupid MS decisions excluded).   
      
   > You'll need to be clearer here. I'm not understanding how discussing the   
   > the OP's assembler and its literal string =B feature is "jumping to a   
   > fully other language".   
      
   The problem is that you, at times, are *not* discussing the OPs choices or   
   assembler (1) - but instead are talking about choices that are made by IBM   
   or solutions other people created for themselves - while making it sound as   
   if they are facts taken from the OP.   
      
   (1) How can you, as he has not mentioned his assembler.  Nor has he posted   
   anything about his final choice or how he has, or intended to, implemented   
   it.   
      
   As for the "jumping to a fully other language" ?  Besides sthe "I was   
   pointing out the limitations in the original implementation" you mean ?   
   What about your "Labels aren't text messages. There are several use cases   
   for the =X operand here." - where you fully ignored the OPs intended usage   
   and went for ... well, something else.    IBMs interpretation perhaps ?   
   The "euroassembler" one ?    Who knows, you never mentioned it.   
      
   > Generally I wouldn't expect to translate the labels from something to   
   > English or Spanish or German or French when internationalising an app.   
      
   Whut ?  And what was that "The languages I mean are human ones" than all   
   about ?    You're not making much sense here you know. :-(   
      
   > Which is where we came in. Used sparingly, =B strings are fine.   
      
   And used every second line or even more often than that it will, on a   
   technically level, work fine too.   
      
   > I wouldn't use beyond a handful because it's more difficult to manage   
   > inlined messages at scale.   
      
   For whom ?    Not the assembler - something I already tried to make clear   
   and I have not seen you respond to in any way (1).  Not by shooting holes in   
   what I said, nor by coming up with your own underbuilding to why it would be   
   so - , and that leaves you.   *Your* personal stance is that *you* cannot   
   handle it.   But how is that relevant to the OP ?   You're right, it isn't.   
      
   (1) but that obviously doesn't stop you from claiming the same again.   
   Rather bad form dude.  :-(   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)