Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in 
CSDb User Forums

Forums > C64 Coding > 64tass: labels inside FOR ... NEXT loops
2016-12-01 16:45

Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
64tass: labels inside FOR ... NEXT loops

does 64tass have the possibility to use indexed labels, like inside a FOR...NEXT loop?

Something like:
.FOR X=0, X<X_MAX-1, X=X+1
so to have X_MAX labels.


... 8 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
2016-12-02 18:58

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 8210
A great example of why code comments and symbols always should be in English

come on.... at least its not japanese :)
2016-12-02 19:42

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 802
Quoting soci
        *= $1000

lista   := []        ; empty
        .for i=0,i<8,i=i+1
lista   ..= [*]      ; collect
        lda #i
        .if i>3

        .word lista   ;all
        .word lista[4];5th

Thanks, will try that.
2016-12-02 21:19

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 4090
soci, could you explain the ..= operator?
2016-12-02 21:37

Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 341
Quote: soci, could you explain the ..= operator?

2016-12-02 22:12

Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Yes, "..=" is the compound assignment version of the concatenate operator "..".

So "a ..= b" is the shorter form of "a := a .. b" or "a .var a .. b". Just like "a += b" is "a := a + b".

Btw. compound assignments for ".for" loops are only available since r1245. The last release was r1237 which is the reason I still used "i = i + 1" instead of the shorter "i += 1" in the example.
2016-12-03 15:56

Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 271
Quoting soci
The "^" prefix for macro parameters is gone since r98. It did an expression evaluation and the result was converted to a decimal string which in turn was used for textual replacement. Similar to the "^" operator.

While it could be resurrected I'd like to see it dead and buried. Unfortunately the non-macro operator variant of this can't go away that easy due to it's common use in basic start lines. The sad thing is there's no other useful use of it at all. It should have been assigned as the bank byte operator but it couldn't due to it's 1.3x legacy.

Why not remove it, with an error message when people use it. I'm sure I can change ^2016 to .text "2061" or something like it in my sources if 64tass borks and prints a clear message.
2016-12-03 17:07

Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Normally it isn't used as '^2061' directly, but more as '^start'. An equivalent replacement is 'format("%d", start)' as that's what it does.

Possibly I can make a deprecation warning which directs to the use of format function instead.

It can't be changed to mean the bank byte immediately as it will compile without error if ".text $9e, ^start" was used. For ".null $9e, ^start" of course not as the result is likely 0 which is an error.

So there needs to be at least one release with the warning before it could change. And then the current "`" bank byte operator needs be there for even longer as an alias. But that's not a big problem as it's like the old "//" alias for modulo (now "%") and there's no plan to reuse it for something else yet.

Edit: It seems I have more than ~450 instances of ^xxx of which only ~50 or so is ^year, ^revision and such, rest is ^start. Oh well...
2016-12-03 19:29

Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 271
Sorry, I meant ^start of course.

Personally I'd rather break stuff now than later if it makes sense. Keeping old cruft around doesn't make maintaining things easier.
Deprecation warnings only serve to have people think "I'll fix that later", which they only do when stuff actually breaks.
2016-12-03 21:49

Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
It's not a maintenance issue as the code implementing it was refactored a few times already and is not much.

The concern is that the de facto standard notation for bank bytes still can't be used while there was a 100% replacement for years to create the exact same strings (and more).

I've added the warning for now as it helps to identify what needs to be changed and how. Especially that the breakage is hard to spot in some cases. Then sometime next year or so "^xxx" will be changed to calculate the bank bytes instead.
2016-12-03 21:52

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 8210
Keeping old cruft around doesn't make maintaining things easier.

you only say that because you don't like it =P
Previous - 1 | 2 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Users Online
Guests online: 43
Top Demos
1 Uncensored  (9.7)
2 Edge of Disgrace  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
4 The Shores of Reflec..  (9.6)
5 Lunatico  (9.6)
6 Quad Core 100%  (9.5)
7 Comaland 100%  (9.5)
8 Incoherent Nightmare  (9.5)
9 Wonderland XII  (9.5)
10 Comaland  (9.5)
Top onefile Demos
1 Pandemoniac Part 2 o..  (9.6)
2 Synthesis  (9.6)
3 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
4 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
5 Field Sort  (9.4)
6 Treu Love [reu]  (9.4)
7 Dawnfall  (9.3)
8 Globe 2016 [reu]  (9.3)
9 KAOS 64  (9.3)
10 Hardware Accelerated..  (9.2)
Top Groups
1 Booze Design  (9.4)
2 Censor Design  (9.4)
3 Oxyron  (9.4)
4 Crest  (9.3)
5 Finnish Gold  (9.3)
Top Hardware-Gurus
1 Soci  (9.9)
2 Wiesel  (9.9)
3 Grue  (9.8)
4 Zer0-X  (9.8)
5 Lemming  (9.7)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2017
Page generated in: 0.537 sec.