flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Macroinstructions > is FASMINC deprecated? |
Author |
|
vid 18 Dec 2006, 16:36
RedGhost mentioned this env variable is deprecated, and we should use ini file instead... really?
|
|||
18 Dec 2006, 16:36 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 18 Dec 2006, 16:47
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=38634#38634
This was seven months ago, and it was an old thing already. But it's not that you should not use FASMINC or set it up - it's just that the official examples and fasm's sources don't use it. |
|||
18 Dec 2006, 16:47 |
|
vid 18 Dec 2006, 18:24
do you think that coming back to include is good? It collides with all other compilers that use include variable.
|
|||
18 Dec 2006, 18:24 |
|
vid 18 Dec 2006, 19:11
i can't imagine case when i would want to share fasm and MSVS includes. But i can imagine case when i don't want FASM to search all my VS includes.
but anyway, it's your decision. |
|||
18 Dec 2006, 19:11 |
|
MichaelH 18 Dec 2006, 20:41
I don't know, to me it seems logical that all include directories on your computer should be listed in the include environment variable. Clearly by the number of people still using "finc", not many agree ..... or maybe it's because few read the fasm documentation
|
|||
18 Dec 2006, 20:41 |
|
vid 18 Dec 2006, 21:15
i'd say it's both
|
|||
18 Dec 2006, 21:15 |
|
MichaelH 18 Dec 2006, 21:42
I moved to using the include enviornment when Tomasz first introduced it, don't remember how long ago that was, maybe two years now? Not once has fasm or Visual Studio mixed things up ..... could be just good luck but both will quickly tell you the problem, so I don't see why people are reluctant to change.
Maybe Tomasz should just dump the legacy code in fasm and force people to change. |
|||
18 Dec 2006, 21:42 |
|
pelaillo 18 Dec 2006, 22:03
Quote: so I don't see why people are reluctant to change I give you another reasons: 1. I don't want to mess with environment variables in all computers I am going to use. In some cases I cannot change them. 2. I can have different sets of includes for testing purposes without changing environment variables. 3. Independence and clarity. |
|||
18 Dec 2006, 22:03 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 18 Dec 2006, 22:08
pellailo: The reasons you give seem to be for something different that discussed here. You can put INCLUDE definition into [Environment] section of FASMW.INI the same way as you can put FASMINC definition there - they both require "messing" with enviroment variables to the same degree.
|
|||
18 Dec 2006, 22:08 |
|
shoorick 19 Dec 2006, 06:56
i think fasminc is very handy to those, who do not use fasmw or other ide which can set customized environment for project(s). and already enough "traditional"
_________________ UNICODE forever! |
|||
19 Dec 2006, 06:56 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.