Re: QELFASM V2.0 Question


Hi Richard,

code converters:

. . . etc.
The only thing I don't like about this is you would then be editting
using the old syntax.
where the converters completely change the syntax for you.
It's true in the sense that the macros would be written in the QELFASM
syntax, but that would have to be done only once for each assembler,
and placed in a file which could be included. Then the other
assembler's syntax would be used for the actual program (and converted
on the fly by the macro pass.) Another way to think of it is that,
yes, the macros are written in QELFASM format, but on the other hand,
a new converter would have to be written in C, which isn't any kind of
1802 assembly at all. And the macros themselves would be much easier
to write, once the general macro facility is in place.

Your REPLACE option is kind of like a MACRO, but could cause the code
to be hard to read or debug, if you see B3 and a BN3 is compiled,
especially if you happen not to notice the REPLACE statement. With
macros, you would define MARK3 and SPACE3 as B3 and BN3, or as BN3 and
B3, respectively; that would alert a reader that she needs to look for
a macro definition somewhere.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.