Re: A86: Attention! Module Draft Available
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Attention! Module Draft Available
> > And that is when things become complicated for the loader, as we both
> > agreed earlier, only dependent functions should be placed in the same
> > lib (this is going no where but in a loop ;)
> >
>
> I'm tired of arguing about this, so I'll program the assembler to utilize
> whatever format you guys come up with. The vote is clearly for modules,
> so go with modules. (Just remember our debate before you whine about the
> module load sequence. ;-) )
I'm going to write whatever the voting says and right now 90% of voters
want modules.
> (Bill:) The module standard page is still rough. If you want to update
> it, go ahead and mail me the revisions, and I'll post them. Keep in mind
> that I can't make a proper assembler without proper knowledge of the
> module format!
I took a quick look at it, nothing really wrong with it. I'll take a
better look.
> One more thing: We don't have to have a flag for perform program
> write-back. We can make it a module. Then programs could save themselves
> at any time, instead of only when they exit.
Yeah, a month ago I wrote a version of AShell that does a very pre-beta
of module support. I made a PutSprite module and it worked, and I did a
module that just waits for key input, but for some reason a module for
prog-write-back just wouldnt work. I'll have to recheck all of my code,
but knowing where the iy flags are can still be useful.
Bill
-----------------------------------------------
Free email accounts http://www.stealthmail.com/
References: