Glenn Saunders wrote:
> If we're talking about syntax, what I dislike the most about assembly syntax
> vs. high level languages is how hard it is to visualize the differences
> between a plain old label and a subroutine.
> There is no "Function DrawScreen()" sort of syntax. A label is a label is a
> label.
> So if you have a big subroutine it's hard to differentiate the natural
> startpoint from internal labels used by loops and branching stuff.
There is a solution, use SUBROUTINE! (DASM rocks!)
Now you can give all local labels a name starting with ".". Only the
subroutine labels and the extra startpoints get a normal name without
the point.
Now the code is much easier to read, look at my Pitfall! disassembly to
see what I mean.
> (An example of where this is used is in Manuel's horizontal positioning
> subroutine. It seeks to a different startpoint for P0 vs. P1.)
> Plus it's hard to think about function parameters either, since there are no
> rules for how to pass parameters to assembly subroutines. You can use the
> stack, use the registers, or use general RAM.
The best way, is to comment your code. Give every subroutine a comment
header where you describe the input and output parameters (registers,
variables and flags), and the functionality of course.
Have fun!
Thomas
_______________________________________________________
Thomas Jentzsch | *** Every bit is sacred ! ***
tjentzsch at web dot de |
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
