Although it's easy enough to do manually, I (and probably others) would like to see randInt(). It would be especially cool if you could optimize it for constant arguments.

I think the new For(const) command could be nicely extended to For(expression). The expression would be evaluated exactly once, upon entry to the loop, and the HL before the For() would be preserved (just like in the constant version). Here's my suggested asm code generation:
 push hl
  ;EVALUATE EXPRESSION HERE
  ex (sp),hl
  pop bc
loop:
  push bc
  ;LOOP BODY HERE
  pop bc
  dec bc
  ld a,b
  or c
  jr nz,loop
Or, if you wanted to employ the nested djnz optimization like in the constant version (which may not be worth it due to size):
 push hl
  ;EVALUATE EXPRESSION HERE
  dec hl
  inc l
  inc h
  ld b,l
  ld c,h
  pop hl
loop:
  push bc
  ;LOOP BODY HERE
  pop bc
  djnz loop
  dec c
  jr nz,loop
Edit:
Hmm, this reminds me, what should happen when For() contains a 0? Should the loop be skipped?

I know a maximum variable name length of 5 works out well for you because that makes each entry 8 bytes large, but in my experience so far 5 just isn't enough. I think 8 or 13 would be nice.


Also, bumping two old feature requests:

Quote from: Deep Thought on April 09, 2011, 08:31:16 pm

Quote from: ztrumpet on April 09, 2011, 05:15:43 pm

Can we have a feature like "Zeros()," but for any data.  For instance, something like this:
Command(1,12) would be the same as [010101010101010101010101]
Command([56],4) would be the same as [56565656]
Command(127,6) would be the same as Data(127,127,127,127,127,127)
Potentially, this command could even be used for repeating sets of data.  For instance:
Command([010203],12) would be the same as [010203010203010203010203]
Command("Text"[00],15) would be the same as "Text"[00]"Text"[00]"Text"[00]

So, what do you think?  Could this be a command?  I think it's a good idea, to avoid situations like this.

I really like that idea. What about changing Zeros( (det() to something more universal?

I would suggest changing the token replacement to Block(). Feeding 1 argument would create a block of the specified size filled with zeroes. Feeding 2 arguments would create a block of the specified size filled with a specified value. Maybe you could even add a Block()^r command for creating a block filled with a specified word while you're at it, although this probably isn't as necessary as a normal byte-filling block command.

Quigibo, perhaps implement B_CALL(_DelRes) somehow? It would probably have to be manually called by the user at their discretion, but it would be useful for people who want to use L₂. And for that matter, B_CALL(_DelRes) should probably be a part of the interrupt setup, which it currently is not.

Wasn't Fill just changed to do exactly that?

I agree with all the features on this page. I was going to quote them, but that would be huge.

Hi!

I am new in the forum :-)
I'd like to have a debug macro (#Debug / #Release) and #Debug(code) would mean the code is only executed in debug mode, or something like this.
I'm am for the 4 args loops too.

There is an error in the commandList :
DispGraphClrDraw(BUF1,BUF2)rr has been replaced by DispGraphClrDraw(BUF1,BUF2)r

decimals and negatie numbers should please be possible!!

But that isn't possable to make, or?

maybe a built in picture to hex editor? with custom side lengths.