How do you guys feel about that syntax?

I like the idea of having one token for everyone and using letters to see who is who, but the → is a bit confusing according to me. Why not parentheses instead, like .THING() for default, .THING(I) for Ion, etc ? Or if you want to use the →, why not .M→THING instead of .THING→M ?

Quote from: Runer112 on July 28, 2013, 02:52:49 pm

How do you guys feel about that syntax?

I like the idea of having one token for everyone and using letters to see who is who, but the → is a bit confusing according to me. Why not parentheses instead, like .THING() for default, .THING(I) for Ion, etc ? Or if you want to use the →, why not .M→THING instead of .THING→M ?

The idea was that you're "storing" the compiled data into the target variable type. Does that win you over at all? I find the parentheses method confusing myself because it suggests to me that the file is some massive routine with input arguments, and I mentioned why I like the store approach in the order first suggested.

If you still aren't a big fan of the original syntax suggestion, it can certainly be changed. It would be good to hear input from a few others before any kind of decisions are made.

I was hoping for something like on line 2 :

Code: [Select]

.Shell <whatever>
Also what about the other features I suggested (build constants) ?

I was steering away from a syntax like this because the target variable type needs to be known before compilation even starts, and having it in the header means no need for lookahead parsing. I'm not sure if you intended this, but this syntax does have the advantage of being backwards compatible (older versions of Axe would ignore the target and use the default target). Whether or not this behavior or good, I'm not sure.

And I'm not sure what the purpose of the "build constants" would be. The calculator model and related hardware information aren't constant, they depend on whatever calculator runs the program. Unless you meant including the specs of the actual calculator building the program, but I can't think of how that would be useful. The compiled code should be the same regardless of which model calculator compiled it.

Quote from: Hayleia on July 28, 2013, 02:55:29 pm

Quote from: Runer112 on July 28, 2013, 02:52:49 pm

How do you guys feel about that syntax?

I like the idea of having one token for everyone and using letters to see who is who, but the → is a bit confusing according to me. Why not parentheses instead, like .THING() for default, .THING(I) for Ion, etc ? Or if you want to use the →, why not .M→THING instead of .THING→M ?

The idea was that you're "storing" the compiled data into the target variable type. Does that win you over at all? I find the parentheses method confusing myself because it suggests to me that the file is some massive routine with input arguments, and I mentioned why I like the store approach in the order first suggested.

If you still aren't a big fan of the original syntax suggestion, it can certainly be changed. It would be good to hear input from a few others before any kind of decisions are made.

In fact, reading your post again makes me think that your syntax is the best. It stores the THING program into a M(irageOS) program, so it is basically THING→M.

The syntax also is fine for me It IS pretty clear

I guess so.

Just use the Asm( command, it's here for a reason.

you could use a hex-editor like calcsys