Hallo Soci, > Don't take it personally. No, I don't :) > You're not the first being surprised why .byte is not just an > alias of .text as on some other assemblers. ...... I understand your reasons completely but.... My own assembler behaved exactly as you mentioned. And I noticed it wasn't conveniant. Then I noticed that other assemblers, in particular, behaved in the "wrong" but more conveniant way. So why couldn't mine? So I altered it and never ever regretted it. You noticed you haven convinced me. But you can probably by giving me a good example where things can go wrong very badly by mixing bytes, strings and characters after the .byte directive. > But then (I think) you enabled PETSCII encoding Here you have a very good point. 64tass does have this feature and I now realise that I used it completely wrong: I even disabled it and that's why I got in trouble with 'D'+$80. But at that moment I was focussed on creating a one-file source code for three assemblers. Question: do XA and CA65 have this feature as well? I cannot remember it being mentioned in the manuals. Again, a very good point and I will build this feature into my own assembler! > .text "enD" One remark: what about the BASIC operators in the source codes i.e. '+'+$80, '-'+$80 etc.? IMHO it seems this construction is still needed. In other words: take the best of two worlds :) -- Kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Ruud Baltissen www.Baltissen.org Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-12-03 21:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.