Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Kraków, Poland
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):
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.
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 cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum