Any plans to add 'namespace' feature?

Index > Compiler Internals > Any plans to add 'namespace' feature?

Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Thread

Matrix

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1164
Location: Overflow

Matrix 19 Oct 2014, 13:23

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

revolution wrote:

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
... the codename for current project to "gasm"
So should be we using fasm orgasm?
I thought that could just be a different variant of incrementation... instead of increasing 1 of 2 it would increment "f" to "g". But after the fact I realized that it could bring this association (funny, how it reminds me of Betov's SpAsm). Well, the name (especially codename) is not that important at the moment. It may as well be "fasm g" or something.

I like the idea of the Supermacronizer code generator
Smile

Just name it

"ga"

it will be even shorter to type.
Also it will come before the "gas" with autocompletion.

TGasm would sound good too, but longer

19 Oct 2014, 13:23

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8427
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 23 Oct 2014, 21:43

OK, so my nomenclature is as such: "fasm 1" is the current one (and the only one in actual existence ATM), "fasm g" is my "generic assembler" project (in a stage of specification draft), and "fasm 2" would be an x86 assembler built on "fasm g" core.

23 Oct 2014, 21:43

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20656
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 23 Oct 2014, 21:52

Kind of reminds me of the old table assemblers from the DOS era. Let's hope this one can hit the G spot. Wink

23 Oct 2014, 21:52

smiddy

Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 557

smiddy 24 Oct 2014, 01:22

Groan.... LOL!

24 Oct 2014, 01:22

pelaillo
Missing in inaction

Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 878
Location: Colombia

pelaillo 12 Nov 2014, 18:55

You can call it FIG and the meaning is a double recursive acronym Wink

FIG means: FAL Instruction Generalizer
where FAL means: FIG for Assembly Language

12 Nov 2014, 18:55

Greg_M

Joined: 07 Jun 2025
Posts: 36

Greg_M 08 Jun 2025, 15:40

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

...actually dislike the NASM-inspired dot-based locals mechanism that fasm uses. ...replace it ... eventually.

This is interesting and I'm relieved to see this, because I am new, and was finding the dot notations to be powerful/concise but also to have several nuanced variations to the point where the complexity cost might outweigh the benefit. Perhaps code readability could be too easily reduced.

Are you referring to the "special unnamed namespaces" or use of the dot notation in general?

Do you recommend avoidance or limited usage? Perhaps some usage of the dot namespaces, but within specific guidelines is useful.

Thank You

08 Jun 2025, 15:40

Goto page Previous 1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:

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