Re: New three versions of C64 source code

On Wednesday 03 December 2014, 23:56:58 Kajtár Zsolt <soci@c64.rulez.org> 
wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> There's no one true way ;) I didn't tried to convenience you, just explained
> that it works differently then you expected, and why.
> 
> >> .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 :)
> 
> '+'+$80 and similar stuff works of course. Ok?

isnt the real mistake here that +$80 is used, instead of the more correct |$80 
? :)

-- 

http://www.hitmen-console.org    http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org        http://ar.pokefinder.org

One can not seriously make jokes about apple. But their customers are a 
different story.



       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list