Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?

From: Betov (betov_at_free.fr)
Date: 12/16/04

  • Next message: C: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?" 
    Date: 16 Dec 2004 12:55:06 GMT

    Frank Kotler <fbkotler@comcast.net> écrivait news:41C16F1F.178CA1D3
    @comcast.net:

    >> 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
    reading:

    > mov D§esi+eax*4 026

    , could have any difficulty at understanding where the EA
    is ending.

    * 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:

    >mov,
    >; 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. :)

    Betov.

    < http://rosasm.org/ >

  • Next message: C: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"

    Relevant Pages