On 23/04/2018 20:12, druck wrote:
> On 22/04/2018 21:54, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>> On 22/04/2018 21:44, druck wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2018 12:22, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>> For example, due to operator precedence, parentheses might
>>>> prove to be unnecessary, but you'd be justifiably miffed
>>>> if they disappeared from the source code, as source code
>>>> has human understandabilty considerations, and so
>>>> it becomes necessary to
>>>> insert a special form of NOP in the compiled code to
>>>> represent the parentheses; only one NOP for each pair.
>>>
>>> No, only the source needs such human readable information, it should
>>> not appear in compiled code, or even in the output of hand written
>>> assembler.
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude, but may I suggest that you read this
>> thread from the top, for the discussion, in my terms at least,
>> is for the source to be the compiled code!
>
> I have, and your intention makes no sense to me regardless of what
> architecture it's on.

"ListBack", the name I have somewhat too early coined, is intended to
solve the worldwide problem of software support long after the sources
and design notes have been lost, or to support obsolete equipment
containing firmware for which no manufacture support is forthcoming.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05