>
>but didn't 92+ support ASM anywayz?
>
Yes, but until TI releases information about the 92+ ASM format we'll
probably need Fargo anyway. Besides, (I'm assuming) existing Fargo programs
would need to be converted to the 92+ format in order to use TI's assembly
support, and authors who don't own a 92 Plus probably won't bother.
----
Donald R Barnes
don.barnes@wmich.edu
http://mfti.home.ml.org
donman on EFnet