Re: Betov's crappy notation

From: Betov (betov_at_free.fr)
Date: 02/12/05 

Date: 12 Feb 2005 19:07:58 GMT

"Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> écrivait
news:hRrPd.189$6L4.89@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

> Note, I agree that Rene's syntax is highly dubious in claiming "Intel
> syntax" or "NASM syntax"...I too fail to see the syntactical or
> semantical similiarities at all there...

Entirely on your fault. Not on mine, if you do not
understand a word of what i say, as well in terms
of "Addressing", as in terms of "Integration", or
in terms of "Specific", and so on...

You like it or not, RosAsm _IS_ NASM Syntax-like, in
that matter that it _solves_ the previous incoherency
in the Address/Content dilemna, in the exact same way.

No matter if, at a formal typing point point of view,
it is BYTE[eax] of B§eax, or even the awfull and absurd
BYTE PTR[eax].

Utterly out of subject, even if all the downward parts
of your post say the exact same things as what i have
always said.

Betov.

< http://rosasm.org/ >