On 7/10/06, Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NOOP.vh
>
> Is that good, or would that confuse people, since it's the same syntax
Actually calling it a NOOP confuses me... NOOP to me means increment the
program counter. Do nothing else. Affect no other flags... Why separate by
a .? Why not something like
ASSERT v,h
It's clear, does what it says on the tin. etc.
I see your point, but at the same time, all instructions assert flags.
It's just that the NOOP does nothing BUT assert flags. See? :)
> that some assemblers use for operand size? Do we care, since almost
> no one will ever see the assembly code or even use it indirectly (ie.
> compiler goes directly to binary)?
>
> I think we can retain # to indicate a count and an unadorned number is
> an address (program or memory). Or perhaps we can put an address in
> parentheses with the count being a prefix. So, for instance, if we
> wanted to call address 200 a count of 40 times, it would look like
> this:
Dropping # would be good. Too many languages use it as a comment (e.g. perl,
shell scripts). (Sorry, just thinking about readability).
>
> CALL.rvh 40(200)
>
> Or would that confuse people, making them think it's an offset?
Maybe something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The syntax reminds me of a till then.
40 items @
200 :)
Hey, I like that!
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
