Re, xed.

I took a look at the source and i think something can be done here.
I just need more precisions :
Do you want asmdream to do its work silently (without displaying anything) ?
If yes, you'll have to handle the display of error messages by yourself (I can provide error data).
If no, what do you want it to display ?
Also, do you want the goto feature to be executed by asmdream or do you intend to code one yourself ?

1) Is there any way to use calls in a macro? That could be very helpful!

In asmdream, an address label is always local, which means it can only be refered to in the area where it was defined.
In other words, it's not possible to refer directly to an address label in a macro body, if the label was defined in the data|code area of your source.
The thing is, macro parameters are there to help you do that =]

For example, this won't work :

APPLE{
CALL JUICE < "undefined label" error there, since JUICE is not in the macro area.
}
prgmFRUIT
APPLE
JUICE
...

You have to use a macro parameter to be able to refer to JUICE, indirectly, like this :

APPLE(?){
CALL ?0
}
prgmFRUIT
APPLE(JUICE) < JUICE can be refered there, since it's in the same area.
JUICE
...

You can also use this method, if your code is compatible :

APPLE{
...
}
prgmFRUIT
CALL JUICE
JUICE
APPLE

You can also define address labels directly in a macro body (but won't then be able to refer to them in the data|code area of the source) :

APPLE{
CALL JUICE
JUICE
...
}
prgmFRUIT
APPLE


2) Would you be able to add these as math operations: *, /, and, or, xor, not( ?

Most of the missing operators are already in my todo list (see first post).
To be honest, that won't be for today, since i have to revise many routines to integrate those.

I won't probably add the / operator, since there could be conflicts with labels names (/ already used as a replacement for _).

Same thing goes for the not( token.
Indeed, that left parenthese bothers me, since parenthese tokens are already reserved for instructions & macros.
Anyway, you'll still have this option : -argument-1.

I ask these two because I wanted to make this macro:

Code: [Select]

Pxl-On(?,?{
 LD BC,?0+?1*256
 CALL GETPXLLOC
 OR (HL)
 LD (HL),a
}


I know u know but this piece of code is a good occasion for me to clarify for other potential users :

Only the following tokens are allowed in a macro name definition :
 numbers (0>9)
 uppercase letters (A>Z) < The first one must be one of these.
 space
 ,
 > (store)
 (
 )
 ? (special, defines a parameter)
 { (end of line only)
Unfortunately, i'm afraid allowing more tokens would slow down the macro parsing and i want to avoid that.

Also, LD (HL),a should be LD (HL),A.

Also, I made the outline of a snake game using Asmdream!

I'm definitely happy to see i'm not the only one testing asmdream.
That's a true honor my friend =]

You're welcome Xedy =]
Btw, how naughty is your ti-connect ?

Wow, very cool! Is the download in the first post?

Everything was updated =]

is there a way to bring over includes from the computer (.inc)?

No, and to tell the truth, i won't probably have the time to code that (That's why i included as much equates as possible.).

I mean allowing a different program to pass a source to your assembler.  If someone made a code editor, they would be able to place the program name in ram and call a routine in your app to compile it.

Not initially, but that's an interesting idea.
I'll take a look at that, and see if that could be compatible without altering too much code.

*****

I'm also thinking of adding those :

- symbolic arguments allowed in program counter definition
- a faster way to call all the includes :
Why not an automatic detection/inclusion of all unprotected programs starting with theta (then check header) ?
Some feedback would be quite appreciated about this idea =]

You rock !
To tell the truth, i feel a bit ashamed to haven't found those by myself =S
Thx a lot =]

A "triggering" token is a nice idea i haven't even thought about...
Thx a lot for that suggestion.
Anyway, i'm definitely happy asmdream could have helped you that day =]

Thx for feedback calc84maniac =]

For one thing, it seems like it would be really annoying to have to delete the assembled program manually each time I want to assemble it again.

That's an interesting point.
I guess adding some kind of overwriting (wih confirmation) feature shouldn't represent too much trouble.

And also, there are no bitshifting or bitwise operators... how am I supposed to split my labels into 2 bytes?

I'm actually thinking of adding those to the feature list (multiplication also if i can).
By curiosity, in which case would you need to access the lsb or msb of a label ?