On 12/3/2014 2:07 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > This is an interesting idea but since it doesn't look like a trivial > task, I doubt anyone will do it anytime soon. Basically I understand > this not as a simple search and replace kind of thing but rather quite > a parser or parsers set that could parse each syntax correctly and > "dumb the source down" as needed when output. That doesn't look like > an afternoon type of project. Especially that things like > KickAssembler is getting considerable momentum recently, which adds to > the complexity. Sure - one doesn't need to Maybe I don't understand > what you mean with "pretty simple [..] script" - I somehow don't see > it anywhere close to pretty simple, even for the Python thing ;-) For someone who knows their way around YACC/BISON, a grammar for any of these assemblers is probably a few hours of effort. From there, it's off the C (I think you can generate a YACC grammar into C code) or just call your grammar from your favorite scripting language. But yes, I am sure it's not trivial. Just that it seems better to do that than to dumb down all the source to fit all the assemblers. There's probably a "law" about this and other compatibility facets. Something to the effect of: The amount of features one can use in a supposedly "standard" format is inversely proportional to the number of programs that need to consume said format... -- Jim Brain email@example.com www.jbrain.com Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-12-03 09:00:37
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.