What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:

  asm rol foo, 3;
  asm < ... >
  asm < ... >

rather than only:

  asm {

    rol bar, 3;
    < ... >
  }

Chr. Grade wrote:
> 
> What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:
> 
>   asm rol foo, 3;
>   asm < ... >
>   asm < ... >
> 
> rather than only:
> 
>   asm {
> 
>     rol bar, 3;
>     < ... >
>   }

Do you use a lot of one-line assembly blocks?  Are the braces that much of a burden?

Try this:
   asm {rol foo, 3;}
   asm { ... }
   asm { ... }


-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more puritanical.

J C Calvarese wrote:
>
> Do you use a lot of one-line assembly blocks?  Are the braces that much
> of a burden?
>
> Try this:
>    asm {rol foo, 3;}
>    asm { ... }
>    asm { ... }
>
>

> Chr. Grade wrote:
> 
>>
>> What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:
>>
>>   asm rol foo, 3;
>>   asm < ... >
>>   asm < ... >
>>
>> rather than only:
>>
>>   asm {
>>
>>     rol bar, 3;
>>     < ... >
>>   }
> 

Chr. Grade wrote:

> Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
> asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
> And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more puritanical.

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?puritanical

I'm sorry, I just don't understand.

Anyhow, why is this a plus?  Example:

	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();

Versus:

	if (true)
	{
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
	}

It also makes code harder to type, harder to copy and paste, uglier imho, and... ermm... well, i just don't like it.  I like my assembly clean ;).

-[Unknown]

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> Chr. Grade wrote:
> 
>> Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
>> asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
>> And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more puritanical.
> 
> 
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?puritanical
> 
> I'm sorry, I just don't understand.
> 

I think the idea he's getting across is "rigid" or "non-flexible." Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a moral issue, but I get his drift. :-)