Re: New three versions of C64 source code

From: Kajtár Zsolt <>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 23:56:58 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Hash: SHA1

> I understand your reasons completely but.... My own assembler behaved
> exactly as you mentioned. And I noticed it wasn't conveniant. Then I
> noticed that other assemblers, in particular, behaved in the "wrong" but
> more conveniant way. So why couldn't mine? So I altered it and never ever
> regretted it.
> You noticed you haven convinced me. But you can probably by giving me a
> good example where things can go wrong very badly by mixing bytes,
> strings and characters after the .byte directive.

There's no one true way ;) I didn't tried to convenience you, just explained
that it works differently then you expected, and why.

>> .text "enD"
> One remark: what about the BASIC operators in the source codes i.e. 
> '+'+$80, '-'+$80 etc.? IMHO it seems this construction is still needed.
> In other words: take the best of two worlds :)

'+'+$80 and similar stuff works of course. Ok?

- -- 
Version: GnuPG v1


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2014-12-03 23:00:34

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.