On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:29:32PM +0100, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > I seem to remember a recent discussion about startup code vs. > "headers" in which producing a CBM file without the BASIC stub was a > potential usecase. That is true, but chances that something goes wrong here are really small. I cannot think of a scenario where omitting the call to CLRCH causes a problem. But I can think of a scenario where the current solution *with* the call breaks the intended behaviour. So removing the call might in fact improve the situation. > >From that perspective it might be preferable to just comment-out the > call with a notice that it is already done by the BASIC interpreter > (thus serving as a hint to activate the call in a non-BASIC scenario). I don't like #ifdefs and I don't like code that is commented out but never used. And this is - with a very high probability - the fate of a commented out call to CHRCH. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Thu Dec 10 19:56:37 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2009-12-10 19:56:39 CET