Re: A89: Re: Hello everyone.

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Hello everyone.
From: Olle Hedman <oh@hem.passagen.se>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:03:53 +0200
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
References: <000401beb8d8$468ac9a0$20200a0a@whitehat>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

hmm..   then you either need to write a new assembler, or find one that can call
an external program for preprocessing of code (I havn't seen any, for any asm)
or put it in a bat, that calls your external program for preprocessing..  hmm 2
and 3 is about the same.. write a preprocessor.. I don't really see any
advantages..  why not just use the tools there is for encode, put it in your
code, include the routines needed and use them?
I think it is a lot work for so little gain..
and the simpler you make it for new programmers, the longer time it will take
before they relly understand what asm is, and what they are doing.. IMHO...

//Olle

SirKnight wrote:
> 
> >very bad if you use it more then one time. or a lot waste of space at
> least.
> >a macro is copied into your code everytime you use it.
> >what is wrong with a decompress subroutine? I don't see that you win very
> much
> >by your method.
> 
> Subroutine is the correct word.  But the idea is that in your code you put
> the uncompressed images, and the assembler (compiles?) the code and
> compresses the images then includes the _subroutine_ :) and automatically
> calls it when needed.

Follow-Ups:

Re: A89: Re: Hello everyone.

From: "Dux Gregis" <dux@acz.org>

References:

Re: A89: Re: Hello everyone.

From: "SirKnight" <sirknight@mindless.com>