0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Runer112 on September 30, 2011, 06:21:06 pmThat seems like a pretty good way to safely implement stack usage. But could there also be commands for more experienced coders that simply equate to push hl, pop hl, and ex (sp),hl? Because your idea is great for casual coders, but crazy people like me like to be able to squeeze every last byte out of code. Something like you suggested here seems to be a good idea for syntax, and calc84maniac suggested a good syntax for ex (sp),hl here. Of course you would want to warn users about the dangers of these commands in the command list, but I don't think it's too dangerous to warrant not adding. There are so many other ways a programmer can crash their calculator with Axe, adding a new one won't really change much.Directly using pushing/popping can definitely cause problems in the middle of expressions, and in For(const) loops for example. There are too many things subject to change in the implementation of Axe for direct stack access not to be potentially buggy unless you know a lot about the inner workings of Axe. I think Asm() will suffice for crazy hackage.Edit: Well, I suppose Axe could keep track of all pushes/pops as well as which ones are manual and which ones are internal. It could then error if it tries to internally pop a manual push or manually pop an internal push. That's fairly safe, I guess.
That seems like a pretty good way to safely implement stack usage. But could there also be commands for more experienced coders that simply equate to push hl, pop hl, and ex (sp),hl? Because your idea is great for casual coders, but crazy people like me like to be able to squeeze every last byte out of code. Something like you suggested here seems to be a good idea for syntax, and calc84maniac suggested a good syntax for ex (sp),hl here. Of course you would want to warn users about the dangers of these commands in the command list, but I don't think it's too dangerous to warrant not adding. There are so many other ways a programmer can crash their calculator with Axe, adding a new one won't really change much.
Quote from: calc84maniac on October 01, 2011, 11:34:47 pmQuote from: Runer112 on September 30, 2011, 06:21:06 pmThat seems like a pretty good way to safely implement stack usage. But could there also be commands for more experienced coders that simply equate to push hl, pop hl, and ex (sp),hl? Because your idea is great for casual coders, but crazy people like me like to be able to squeeze every last byte out of code. Something like you suggested here seems to be a good idea for syntax, and calc84maniac suggested a good syntax for ex (sp),hl here. Of course you would want to warn users about the dangers of these commands in the command list, but I don't think it's too dangerous to warrant not adding. There are so many other ways a programmer can crash their calculator with Axe, adding a new one won't really change much.Directly using pushing/popping can definitely cause problems in the middle of expressions, and in For(const) loops for example. There are too many things subject to change in the implementation of Axe for direct stack access not to be potentially buggy unless you know a lot about the inner workings of Axe. I think Asm() will suffice for crazy hackage.Edit: Well, I suppose Axe could keep track of all pushes/pops as well as which ones are manual and which ones are internal. It could then error if it tries to internally pop a manual push or manually pop an internal push. That's fairly safe, I guess.Not good if someone wants that to happen though
Any chance we will see 32 bit numbers soon ?
I think Runer112 posted a routine that allowed combining two numbers into one to make 32 bit ones, sort of.