[fasmg] performance and optimisation

_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):

Code:

db#(1)

_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