X-Authentication-Warning: kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:46:53 -0600
From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: djasm documentation patch 2/4
Message-ID: <20010115104653.B12295@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <3099-Sat13Jan2001195335+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10101151620370 DOT 13182-100000 AT acp3bf>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101151620370.13182-100000@acp3bf>; from broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:23:03PM +0100
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

-: Or how about "special-purpose"? Or, maybe even closer to the point,
-: "limited-purpose", as that's the real distinction between DJASM and other
-: assemblers: it's not (meant to be) a general-purpose assembler, and the
-: "What's missing" section already cited in this thread even explicitly says
-: so.

Unless there are objections, let's use "The DJGPP 16-bit assembler".
Despite its limitations, djasm is very usable, and Bill has added
features to his version that have not yet been integrated into the
official version.

As I noted earlier in this thread, *my* impression of `limited
functionality' or `special purpose' (sensu "djasm is only for
compiling the stub") developed as I read all the djasm postings
from the mail archives.  This really does an injustice to djasm,
though, and I would like to encourage the use of djasm for other
purposes (e.g., Bill's LFN TSR is written in djasm, and would make
another nifty DJGPP utility).