Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: "cr88192" <cr88192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:46:21 +1000
"Betov" <betov@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XnF990A64218AEA6betovfreefr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betov <betov@xxxxxxx> écrivait news:XnF990A5D72965DDbetovfreefr@
212.27.60.40:
the semicolon is space-sensitive so:
push ebp; mov ebp, esp
is parsed as 2 instuctions (the semicolon is regarded as a seperator
here).
however:
push ebp ;mov ebp, esp
is parsed as a single instruction followed by a comment.
Oh! I skipped over this. And what of:
push ebp ; mov ebp, esp
push ebp;mov ebp, esp
? A "semi-comment" and an "half-comment" ?
the former will be parsed as a comment (only prefix space is considered in
this case).
the later will be parsed as globbed instructions.
:))
This is... terrible, in my opinion, and particulary absurd.
A kind of "Anti-Flexibility" performance.
I don't see what the big deal is really.
in many of my languages, I have made use of similar rules (where and how
whitespace is present, ...) wrt, for example, expression parsing,
distinguishing between function calls and definitions, ...
{foo: 1 2 -1 x*y}
fib(x)
if(x>2)fib(x-1)+fib(x-2) else 1;
foo(x)
bar(y)
vs:
foo(x)
bar(x)
....
intuitively, these things may seem rather distasteful, but IME they tend to
work out fairly well in practice...
Betov.
< http://rosasm.org >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: Betov
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- References:
- from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: cr88192
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: SpooK
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: cr88192
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: Betov
- Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- From: Betov
- from elsewhere, an assembler
- Prev by Date: Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- Next by Date: Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- Previous by thread: Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- Next by thread: Re: from elsewhere, an assembler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|