Hi Joep,
Joep Suijs wrote: > I shared our idea's of the 'bertlib to jallib conversion document' with Bert. > .... > - He thinks that the main difference between his pack and jallib is > the use of defaults for 12 pics. Another important difference is also the naming of register-subfields (_with_ the register-prefix) and the 'normalised' register names and fuse_defs. This applies to the user-programs. This can at least partly be handled by aliasing, but a drawback of aliasing is that it may hinder real conversion of a program. > If Bert is right on the point, we might provide a file with the all > defaults of the jallib equivalents of bert's libs and maybe also a > list of the approperate includes. This would give a 2-step transfer: > 1. include the super-include and change all function calls from bert > to jal format. > 2. move the required part of the super-include to you program and > remove the super include itself. I'm not sure this is the right (or only) way for proper migration. There are some fundamental differences between the approach of Bert and that of Jallib. I don't think this can be solved with only a super-include file. I think also a document with guidelines will be needed for new users. The file 'devicefiles.html' contains already much of the information to draft some of the basic guidelines. And the library docs are another source. Regards, Rob. -- Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
