From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200101131601.RAA25162@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: djasm documentation patch 2/4
In-Reply-To: <20010113091207.B6763@kendall.sfbr.org> from JT Williams at "Jan 13, 2001 09:12:07 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:01:22 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

According to JT Williams:
> -: 
> -: > + * djasm::       The DJGPP 16-bit assembler (limited functionality).
> -: 
> -: *I* wouldn't say it was "limited".
> 
> Well, I agree completely, but the impression I got while collating the
> djasm information from the mail archives is that djasm exists *only* to
> compile the stub, and that any other use is somehow `unofficial' or
> `unsupported'.  The `limited functionality' is a poorly worded attempt
> to convey this, but I am delighted to remove it and promote the use of
> djasm as a stand-alone assembler.  Please advise.

Well how limited is djasm's functionality really?

If it's not limited at all then I suggest we remove that part. If it's
missing some functionality then perhaps "work in progress" would be
better?


Right,

						MartinS