#: 8901 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    26-Dec-90  08:33:42
Sb: #8900-#68000 ASM Language
Fm: Jack Crenshaw 72325,1327
To: Jack Crenshaw 72325,1327 (X)

[Continued]

       
       (An)
       (An, Rx)
       (PC)
 or    (PC, Rx)

Now, here's the proposition:  Is anyone besides me interested in defining a
better syntax?  I figure, as long as I'm writing an assembler, why not choose
the syntax to be easier, both to code in and to assemble?

I have two alternatives:

(1)  Pick a new set of mnemonics, and a new syntax for arguments, that's
parsible by a simple predictive parser.  Make it as rational as possible, and
use different mnemonics where different operations are implied.

or (2) While I'm at it, make the language more like a high-order language. In
other words, instead of

       MOVE X(PC),D0               D0 = X
       ADD Y(PC),D0        use     D0 += Y  (or perhaps just D0 + Y)
       JSR FOOBAR                  CALL FOOBAR

I'd appreciate comments/ideas/criticisms. Anyone want to help define such a
language?  Anyone have any better ideas?  Anyone out there who _DOESN'T_ think
I'm crazy?

Jack



There is 1 Reply.