Re: A82: TAZM (Proposal)...
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A82: TAZM (Proposal)...
At 08:43 PM 5/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/25/99 8:48:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>shinelight@detroit.crosswinds.net writes:
>
>> 3) Change the strict requirements for macro definitions and, again, make
>> them just a preprocessor suggestion. The current format requires both the
>> definition name and the line that invokes the macro expansion to have a
>> colon ':' at the end. Essentially, a macro is really a cross between a
>> line label and a #define, so I mixed the two to come up with the new
>> definition. I figure a lot of people will complain, so I'm including
>> support for the "old" format.
>
>As far as I know, no colon is needed when invoking a macro. Please tell me
>what you mean.
The colon "feature" was mainly to decrease processing time. Basically,
there is no need for concern on this issue. I'm just returning to the TASM
syntax for macros. In the future I might add multi-line macro capabilities
with a #macro {stuff goes here...} definition. Just in case you wanted to
know what I was talking about, here is what was originally planned:
#define MyMacro(Addr, Addr2): ld bc,22 \ ld de,55
...
MyMacro($0101, $0102):
Basically, the colon allowed the preprocessor to quickly determine that
this was either a label or macro and not a command with memory references.
Going back to TASM's format will slow down macro detection and expansion
considerably.
Thomas J. Hruska -- shinelight@detroit.crosswinds.net
Shining Light Productions -- "Meeting the needs of fellow programmers"
http://www.shininglightpro.com/
References: