_shura wrote: |
Currently »#(« always result in an invalid instruction, argument or expression
|
|
This is not exactly true, the following is a valid construction and assembles correctly with fasmg (and even with fasm 1 when used inside a macro):
_shura wrote: |
Is the philosophy of fasmg more important than writing readable code?
|
|
The philosophy of fasmg is that its simple building blocks should allow you to re-define and alter almost everything in the language and thus be able to use any syntax that you deem the most readable or useful.
_shura wrote: |
What about allowing to defining the struc »=«, so I can do all of my syntactical sugar myself without having it written in fasmg-source: (...)
|
|
You have the "struc ?" that serves this purpose:
Code: |
struc (symbol) ? definition&
match [index] == value, definition
repeat 1, i:index
symbol#i = value
end repeat
else
symbol definition
end match
end struc
abc[1+2] = 'test'
display abc3
|
|