Re: A82: Re: TAZM (Proposal)...

To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A82: Re: TAZM (Proposal)...
From: "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@detroit.crosswinds.net>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:33:42 -0400
Delivered-To: assembly-82-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org
In-Reply-To: <002b01bea770$6dbaffa0$31b43ecb@cameron>
References: <3.0.6.16.19990525204709.397f6e1c@pop.detroit.crosswinds.net>
Reply-To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org

At 10:07 PM 5/26/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Sounds better, but I have another suggestion for that bracketing.  Why not
>just use square brackets to indicate indirection, and all parantheses will
>be used in mathematical evaluation?  This'd be quite readable, especially to
>x86 programmers, and should be sufficient for determining what to do.

Hmm...that sounds good, except there is one _slight_ problem.  Think about
the hordes of source code that would have to be ported to the "new &
improved" format of square brackets.  My idea would require zero porting
and would only need to be implemented where mathematical paranthesis are
inside of the indirection paranthesis (see previous example).  I'm thinking
that there will only be a very few cases where this could occur.  So, I'm
just going to stick with the current TASM format wherever possible.

>Remember, the more changes you make to the source code format, the less
>likely people will be to switch to it -- some people have been using the
>TASM format for quite a while now, and won't like the changes.

        Thomas J. Hruska -- shinelight@detroit.crosswinds.net
Shining Light Productions -- "Meeting the needs of fellow programmers"
                   http://www.shininglightpro.com/

References:

A82: TAZM (Proposal)...

From: "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@detroit.crosswinds.net>

A82: Re: TAZM (Proposal)...

From: "Cameron McCormack" <cameron.m@iname.com>