Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?
From: Betov (betov_at_free.fr)
Date: 16 Dec 2004 12:55:06 GMT
Frank Kotler <email@example.com> écrivait news:41C16F1F.178CA1D3
>> Though, there is no argument in favour of use of
>> "" for this, but the fact that this is what you
>> are used to, what is not a valid argument.
> What's the valid argument for changing it to "D$", which doesn't
> indicate where the EA *ends*?
There is a question inside the question, here.
"Indicate to WHAT (to WHO)?".
* If you mean for the programmer, at a readability point
of view, this might effectively be an argument in favour
of "", even though i have serious doubt that anybody
> mov D§esi+eax*4 026
, could have any difficulty at understanding where the EA
* If you mean at the parsers point of view, if it checks
correctly the "+*" chars, there is no problem, at all.
IMO, a decent parser must assume any personal choice
of writing, in matter of spaces, Lines spacing and such.
For example, with RosAsm, you can even write something
as stupid as:
>; Isn't that foolish?
>; Insn't it?
>D$esi+ eax* 4,,, 026xh
... and it will really assemble the right thing, same
as the above regular version. :)