I tried to find a subforum for posting suggestions, this forum is the closest I got to. I apologize if this is not the right place.

The frustrating things about named local labels is that as you add more code, you end up adding or taking away older labels or inserting more code in between two or more labels, and I find myself adding more local labels (Maybe not so often) but sometimes and perhaps quite frequently, I also need to rename the local labels.

I've found that this has become routine, and the solution for me is to use anonymous labels, but the problem with them is I can't jump more than one ahead or before.

I would love to see (fasm 1) extended to allow to jump beyond the nearest anonymous label:


Alternatively:

Maybe more readable:

One of the benefits with this for me, is that the code becomes cleaner overall, less clutter overall, it becomes "narrower" all over the code. Sometimes it is better to have the code as clean as possible, and sometimes you can't get without it and then you can use named local labels.

But there are times when you want to avoid the clutter that comes with local labels, for example when you are developing a very technical piece of code, and you want to avoid local label clutter, in order to see the code better, then anonymous labels can be better.

It is also worth it for me if you would be able to jump back and forth per instruction. I'm sure there can come a time when it would be useful. Having that option, the ability or the luxury is what makes programming so fun. It may not be so useful, but having that luxury adds comfort.

Possible extensions to @@ mechanism have been discussed since many years ago, but my usual response was to propose macros that would handle this.

Something like the variant you propose has been made as macros for fasmg some time ago, but I believe something similar could be made for fasm 1, too.

Hey, you are alive

This time it is important to keep things organized and not let things go out of hand, especially when you're dealing with two projects.

I see tendencies to that things that sometimes it can be too much work. It is strongly advised to see this time as the right time to keep it organized.

Sometimes when dealing with two projects, it is hard to differentiate between the two and thoughts can move in the wrong directions, confusing fasm1 for fasmg and vice versa.

I once saw a guy using fasm1 terms in fasmg terms, and that was not pretty. Personally, I only want to see improvements, nothing more and nothing less.