#: 9024 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    05-Jan-91  06:49:24
Sb: #9009-#68000 ASM Language
Fm: Jack Crenshaw 72325,1327
To: William Phelps 75100,265 (X)

Ok on the defs, William.  I understand the definition of the ifp1 keyword, but
can imagine no earthly reason why one would want to use it.  I' having a hard
time imagining how a program, written in any programming language, could be or
should be tangled up with the way the translator was implemented.  Do you find
it useful?

Re TIL:  Again, I understand.  I used to be something of a fan of FORTH, so I
can dig the concept.  The idea of putting subroutines in line, though, doesn't
fit very well with the idea of an assembler.  In the latter, the whole point
would seem to be to do the absolute minimum kinds of transformations to the
language.  It's just a one-for-one translation from mnemonics to machine codes.

Jack



There is 1 Reply.