Dumb question, but would it be a horrible idea to support cmdline assembling from the IDE .EXE without actually bringing up the editor? (for batch non-interactive work) I guess you'd need yet another cmdline opt, though.

fasmd -c blah.asm blah.exe

Just curious if that's reasonable or not.

why not just use FASM?
$fasm foo.asm
that should make a file called foo.exe, no?

"Why not just use FASM?"

Well, I'm just curious why FASM's IDEs can't also support both interactive assembling as well as via cmdline. I'm not opposed to the current way of having separate .EXEs, just think it would be maybe nice to have the IDE support both ways. (And yes, I know it's probably trivial to hack up myself, maybe I'll do that.)

In Windows I thought that a dual command/GUI file was not possible to have in a nice way.

A console file format opened from an explorer shortcut will always open a new console window. The console window can be closed when the GUI is started but it is annoying to have the console flicker into existence and then disappear.

A GUI file format opened from a console window cannot output messages to the existing console, it has to open a new console window to output text into. And then hold that window open until the user has acknowledged to have read the messages.

In DOS there is no GUI or console file format (just exe format) so this can be done without too much problem. But since there is no real GUI anyway (just a TUI) then the point is moot.

use the command line version of fasm.

the ide is just an editor, with a sub called fasm inside.
this subroutine acts exactlly as the comand line version.

revolution,

GUI process can probably attach to the console of parent process. Just a hypothesis.

right... http://us.generation-nt.com/answer/get-parent-console-help-27527112.html

But I don't see this feature coming