Re: from elsewhere, an assembler

Betov wrote:
Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:46160622.95EA8A07

My own choices, in the whole syntax, has been that, on one hand,
_each_ char _must_ have a signification, and that, on the other
hand, the syntax must be a flexible as possible. On this very
point, i have choosen to make ',' the Line-Continuation Char,
what seems to me to have been a good choice. It makes it legal
to write, as well:

mov eax ebx | mov edx 0 | div ecx

mov,
eax,
ebx | mov edx,,,,,0
div,
,,, ecx


Funny, you allow multi statements on a line and because then
the line can become to long, you need a line continuation
character to allow a line break within an instruction and
not only at instruction borders.


mov eax ebx | mov edx eax | mov ecx edx

eax <- ebx
+--------------------+
edx <- eax-+
+--------------------+
ecx <- edx-+

What are you talking about? Rejecting the Multi-Instructions
lines concept? If yes... well... write it the way you'd like...

m'I gniklat tuoba gnitirw secnetnes morf tfel ot thgir tub sdrow
morf thgir ot tfel.
.

Relevant Pages