Date:	Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:24:25 -0700
From:	Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT org>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org
Subject:	Re: djasm.txi patch
Message-ID:	<20010202132425.A20345@taniwha.org>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org
References:	<20010202141302 DOT A7211 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To:	<20010202141302.A7211@kendall.sfbr.org>; from jeffw@darwin.sfbr.org on Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:13:02PM -0600
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:13:02PM -0600, JT Williams wrote:
> Here's a partial patch for djasm.txi (the part that adds discussion
> of enumeration type).  Could a few extra eyes read this over before
> I commit it?  I'm not sure about some of the markup.  Thanks.
> (And thanks, Bill, for making it so easy ;-)

Heh, I'm glad I did. I wasn't sure if I was making things hard or easy.
> +In this example, the enumeration constants @samp{foo}, @samp{bar},
> +and @samp{e} are implicitly initialized.
> +The enumeration @samp{snafu} therefore takes one of the following integer
> +values: foo (-1), bar (0), a (1), b (2), c (4), d (8), or e (9).
> +
> +@example
> +.enum snafu
> +        foo
> +        bar
> +        a=1
> +        b=2
> +        c=4
> +        d=8
> +        e
> +.ends

This doesn't seem quite right. I think that should be foo (0), bar (1), a(1)
... like in C...

I just checked, it is just like in C.

0000:0000  __zero__ (?)
0000:0000  snafu.foo (?)   <-- ***
0000:0001  snafu.a (?)     <-- ***
0000:0001  snafu.bar (?)   <-- ***
0000:0002  snafu.b (?)
0000:0004  snafu.c (?)
0000:0008  snafu.d (?)
0000:0009  snafu.e (?)

Otherwise, everything looked good to me.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

- Raw text -