On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 cybergoth@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Yup! But that's only a part of it. Another important aspect is,
> that I don't want to deal with X slightly altered DASM versions.
>
> It'd be ok to add the @...X...X graphics format to Thomas
> (most recent) version. Good idea, nice thing. Cool to have feature.
>
And it's already done as of this morning...
> But what's the point in having two different illegal opcode enabled
> DASMs, both with different usages?
>
No point at all. My illegal opcode stuff doesn't add any features that
Thomas's doesn't have, so I'm not going to be releasing it. Only reason
I even mentioned it, is somebody asked about it (they didn't search the
archives anyway), and I was in the mood for a spot of C coding...
> Here I come, take another DASM, say 'Nah! illegal opcodes, not for me!'
> put in a §__#_____ graphics format and publish it without illegal
> opcode support. Voilą - One more DASM.
>
No, now you're talking about the Linux kernel, not DASM :)
> Next day I want to compile a new [STELLA] source - Ooops wrong DASM!
> Version DASM_Saunders_2001_build_friday needed.
>
> There's really no offense intended, but for me one DASM is enough.
> Evolve that one version step by step (just like Z26 - it works!)
> Ok - But don't have everybody brewing his own...
>
> Phew... again, this was not meant to step on your toes Brian,
> I really think it's cool that you want to update DASM,
> but please, start from the right point.
>
> If you had known about Thomas' version right from the start,
> you'd have used his version as a base, I'm sure.
>
Right. If I'd known about it... but at the time when I was considering
it, I was sitting behind a 28.8k dialup (I just lost my cablemodem
last week), so it didn't even occur to me to use a web browser, because
it's just too painful :(
> That's all what I meant with:
> "I wish people would start browsing the archive"
>
Point taken.
Part of the reason for talking about it on here, was to get people's
opinions, anyway.. Now I've got your opinion, and when you put it like
that, I agree with you.
So I'll take Thomas's illegal opcode DASM, add my (well, Glenn's)
@X...X... stuff for graphics. Now I've thought of another feature
that I'd find useful, don't know if anyone else would.. how about
a `reverse/revend' pair of pseudo-ops? Their purpose would be to
reverse the order of the stuff that comes between them, so you no
longer have to draw your graphics upside-down in source... If you
wanted to draw an Atari symbol in DASM source, you'd say:
reverse
byte @..X.X.X.
byte @..X.X.X.
byte @..X.X.X.
byte @.XX.X.XX
byte @.X..X..X
byte @.X..X..X
revend
...and the reverse/revend would take care of flipping it upside down,
if you were going to draw it with a dey/bne loop...
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Would anyone use it?
B.
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
