It would be nice to update the assembler

Greetings to YOU Dmitry!

Thursday May 01 1997 12:46, Dmitry Grigoryev wrote to Andrew Moa:

DG> Either the example is unsuccessful, or I was right ;) What are the advantages of this
DG> form over the usual one:

DG> ld hl,50000
DG> ld bc,300
DG> call clr

DG> clr:
DG> ...
Well, actually, this construction is a bit far from a macro, I remember with a macro
it should look something like this:
MayProg.A
....
Clr 50000,300
....

MayLib.M
.....
Clr
......

Is this construction clearer?

DG> Redefinition is, of course, interesting... But, in my opinion, only
DG> worsens the readability of the source code, which means catching glitches... Where
DG> is more pleasant when you see exactly what will be obtained after
DG> compilation. It’s okay if you see more, but if it’s completely different :(
DG> I get the impression that macros were invented solely for
DG> in order to reduce the size of the source text, which is not relevant given
DG> the existence of token technology.
Well, what if the macro is debugged and tested more than once? Then _WHAT IS THERE TO CATCH_ _?_

Regards Igor

On the day of May 15, 97, Dmitry Grigoryev had the good fortune to write to Igor Pronin:

IP>> _WHAT TO Catch THERE_ _?_
DG> You will catch in bundles and calls to the macro :) And since
DG> the compiled macro looks different than its source - unnecessary difficulties will arise
DG>.

And the listings on what?

Andrew