Re: [Luxasm-devel] Re: Status of LuxAsm?

[Sevag K. <kah...@ya...>]

Sevag Krikorian <kah...@ya...> wrote: I think #define syntax is okay, as long as we stick with '#' as the namespace for all internal directives...
Or... you can always have a macro equate if we go with another namespace.

.macro #define { .define }
  
The  reason I prefer dot '.' is because there is no shift involved and it's right under the 'L' key :)
The disadvantage of this being... you can't use '.' to start labels.

NASM syntax sounds fine, but as I mentioned before, my personal preference would be having all directives in their own namespace and perhaps we can drop NASM's required static type casting when the destination is obvious?


My preferences - - let's hear other inputs.
--
CPU instructions - as is
CPU registers - as is
CPU instruction prefix - as is
LuxAsm directive - prefix namespace dot " .<directive> "
LuxAsm internal type ? either as is or prefix namespace as above. " .<type> "
Syntax: NASMese without obvious static type casting  " mov eax, 1000 "
Addressing: NASMese
Blocks: curly braces { }

That's about it.  These are the simple basic things that need to be agreed on before the next steps can be taken.  My preferences aside, I don  't  really care what is the final agreement as long as there is an agreement!!

And here is something to spice things up:
Deadline to decide these things: March 15, 2006
After which the project can be considered: 
1. DEAD untill...
2. someone takes matters into their own hands, and begins pumping out some code with their chosen format.

March 16.  Project is officially dead.
RIP Luxasm, until someone revivies you....





Sevag Krikorian  -=[Kain]=-

http://www.geocities.com/kahlinor/index.html
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.