Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/24/02:04:13
At 11:35 5/23/1998 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>It is my very humble opinion that the MASM/TASM style of structure
declaration and
>instantiation is superior to the approach the NASM authors have taken, for
if anything,
>the former's approach to structure's appears less complicated than the
latter's.
>I suspect in a future version (0.98?) the authors of NASM may just rectify this
>difference in style. A record/structure for an assembly programmer is
useful, if
>not outright essential, and the use of an 'istruct/iend' with its confusing
>initialization seems altogether unnecessary.
You should tell *them* that.
>2. Use of src,dest rather than dest,src: complete novices are stupefied by
> this notation (unless they read Hebrew or Chinese or some right->left rather
> than left->right language). I can understand a right->left process when
> everything in the syntax/symbolic notation is right to left, that is:
>
> [xbe],xae vom
(Hmm, the last word is somehow appropriate...)
I have heard that Intel's intent was to make it more like algebraic (C?)
syntax. i.e.:
mov foo, bar <--> foo = bar
add foo, bar <--> foo += bar
But clearly that hasn't proven to be a good choice.
Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com
- Raw text -