Hello, * On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:11:17AM +0100 Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:47:28PM -0800, Fatih Aygün wrote: > > Why an .include "macrolib.s" directive is not enough? > [...] > > Am I missing something? > > It's a convenience thing, as many others. A similar question is "why > macros"? You can always do things without macros. Despite being a convenience thing, there might be another advantage that is achievable (at least easier than with a macro). I have to think a little bit more w.r.t. ca65, but I think one can add some initialization code only IFF a macro is actually used. Notice that such a macro file can include not only a macro definition, but every command at all. At least, this is possible with the asm56300. Uz, thank you for considering including this feature. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ http://cbm4win.sf.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Feb 22 09:39:44 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-02-22 09:39:46 CET