"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: Dragontamer on 18 Mar 2006 16:43 rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer wrote: > > > > No. Any label has a scope where it is defined and outside this > > scope it is undefined. This is true for ANY label and has nothing > > to do with local or not local labels. In assembly programming > > a "local label" is label which scope is exactly the space between > > two normal labels. This implicit defined scope for "local labels" > > reduces the need to explicitly define the scope for a label. > > My, how limited your definition of "local label in assembly language" > is. Like Rene, you seem to feel that the definition of a local symbol > in *your* assembler is the only valid one. "There is only *one* true > local symbol, the one *I've* defined", eh? > > How do you explain, then, the concept of local labels in most > languages? They are *not* defined to be local between two symbols, but > local when a given scope in the program. Indeed, a Google search for > "Local Symbols" and "Local Labels" turns up *many* different variations > on this theme. > > But don't take my word for it. Pick up a programming language design > text book and see what it has to say about local symbols. Just as a future note: can we get to a more lively argument? Arguing about the *name* of a concept is pathetic. What we should truely be arguing about (if arguing at all); is the best implementation of the concept. Aka, why say; it is best for "local labels" to be like this. And not "Local labels are defined like so". --Dragontamer
From: Herbert Kleebauer on 18 Mar 2006 17:19 rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer wrote: > > No. Any label has a scope where it is defined and outside this > > scope it is undefined. This is true for ANY label and has nothing > > to do with local or not local labels. In assembly programming > > a "local label" is label which scope is exactly the space between > > two normal labels. This implicit defined scope for "local labels" > > reduces the need to explicitly define the scope for a label. > > My, how limited your definition of "local label in assembly language" > is. Like Rene, you seem to feel that the definition of a local symbol > in *your* assembler is the only valid one. "There is only *one* true > local symbol, the one *I've* defined", eh? You can also define any scope for time you like: for the whole planet, for a continent, for a county, for town, for house or even for a room. And any of this definition gives you a time which is local within this scope. But that doesn't change anything on the fact, that with the term "local time" the time in one of the 24 time zones (to which the location belongs) is meant. You can define any scope for variables or labels you like: the whole program, a module, a procedure, a macro or even 10 lines of code. And any of this definitions gives you a label which is local within this scope. But that doesn't change anything on the fact, that the term "local label" in assembly programming means a label which scope is limited by the enclosing normal labels. > How do you explain, then, the concept of local labels in most > languages? They are *not* defined to be local between two symbols, but > local when a given scope in the program. Indeed, a Google search for > "Local Symbols" and "Local Labels" turns up *many* different variations > on this theme. Maybe you should read before writing. I said 'In assembly programming a "local label" is ..' and not 'In most languages a "local label" is ...'. When I say "in assembly programming an OR instruction is the bitwise OR of two operands", then you answer: 'My, how limited your definition of "OR in assembly language" is. How do you explain, then, the concept of "OR" in most languages? They are *not* defined to be only a bitwise OR but can also be a logical OR'. Your problem seems to be, that you never completely read a posting and then try to argue with arguments completely out of the current context.
From: rhyde on 18 Mar 2006 19:35 o//annabee wrote: > > Why dont you hurry up and post the 6 links to the 6 non-trivial asmmbly > application you have written. I've told you a half-dozen times now, download the HLA examples file. How many more times do you need to be told. > You seem to have time enough for posting > links to your books. And what link do I give? Why the same link I'm giving you: http://webster.cs.ucr.edu. After about seven million hits (since 2000), I get the impression that people can find their way around Webster. What's your problem? > Why not show us how a truely amazing asm experts > write assembly? Been doing it for years. Again, download the HLA examples and you too can learn how an amazing asm expert writes code. > Since your a "master" of assembly, having written the > books "Arts and Assembly" and "Greatnesses of code" it should be of > interest that people could actually find any of the non-trivial apps you > have created. Most people are, apparently, a bit brighter than you are. When I tell them to download the HLA examples from the HLA downloads page, they've found it and have been quite happy. > To see how it should really be done. I looked at you page, > and came up clean. Cant you just post the links? http://webster.cs.ucr.edu. Whiner. Do a little work yourself. Again, if you were serious about this, I'd help you out a little. But you're simply playing games, so I'll continue to play along. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: rhyde on 18 Mar 2006 19:37 Dragontamer wrote: > rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > > Arguing about the *name* of a concept is pathetic. Now you're catching on. > > What we should truely be arguing about (if arguing at all); is the best > implementation of > the concept. These two guys don't seem to understand that there could be more than one implementaiton of the concept. That's the problem. > > Aka, why say; it is best for "local labels" to be like this. And not > "Local labels are defined > like so". Good question. That's what I've been asking. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 19 Mar 2006 02:50
Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> ?crivait news:441C8785.B798947C(a)unibwm.de: > You can define any scope for variables or labels you like: > the whole program, a module, a procedure, a macro or > even 10 lines of code. And any of this definitions gives > you a label which is local within this scope. But that doesn't > change anything on the fact, that the term "local label" > in assembly programming means a label which scope is limited > by the enclosing normal labels. Seconded. There are, at least, two RosAsm writting that way. Though, i do not recommand writing that way, because True Local Symbols are better, and easier. Another point is that the concept of Pseudo Local Labels' Scope, has been invented from pure mythology, that is the "Names Conflict" mythology. In fact, not only Names Conflicts are surprisingly uncommon, but "better", if one comes out, it is a very usefull thing, as long as it shows that the naming itself was incorrect. I mean: If i give the same name to two different things, while trying to write fully self descriptive names, if they conflict, either i did a bad naming job, or i am writting twice the same stuff. :)) Betv. < http://rosasm.org > |