On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Ronald A. Laski, Jr. wrote:
> Why not have DASM do all the things specified, and then someone write (or
> modify) a text editor or emacs(or something) to feed the proper switches to
> the compiler? Kind of like a C compiler that allows/disallows C++ code,
> Ansi C, K & R code, etc... you'd get errors and warnings based on which
> selections you use... it could also create a 'cliswitch.h' header file for
> your project, if everyone used the same version of 'Ultimate DASM' they
> could code in whatever fashion is most comfortable for them and everyone
> else would be able to recompile their programs w/o having to rewrite
> everything in their fashion.
>
> Does that make any sense at all? :)
>
> Ron
Ugh. Forcing someone to use a particular text editor would be a major step
backwards... I like vi, you like emacs, Joe Blow over there likes notepad,
John Q. Smith likes pico or BBedit or EDLIN (well, maybe not)...
You're a lot more likely to get everyone to agree on using the same version
of DASM than you are to get them to agree on using the same text editor.
As it stands, it looks like there are only 2 released versions of DASM
2.12 out there, and the only difference is that one supports illegal ops
and the other doesn't. Yes, I'm playing around with the code & thinking of
new features to add, but I don't want to release my own, incompatible,
unofficial version.
The final decision whether something goes in or not will have to be up to
whoever the `official' maintainer of the code is.. So who is that? Bob?
Thomas? Will the real DASM maintainer please stand up? :)
B.
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
