On Monday 30 July 2012 12:04:49 Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > Is this intentional, or a bug? > It is intentional. Thank you for clarifying this. > If you can come up with a good reason, why unnamed labels should adhere After sending the mail I thought of a scenario where scoping unnamed labels would cause even more mess than they are - imagine an unnamed label reference crossing an included scope with an unnamed label. How many times will you count wrong because you also count the scoped unnamed labels... Or imagine you want to create a new local scope... So, not scoping unnamed labels is absolutely fine! BTW: where do these unnamed labels come from? Especially, as you mention yourself, that they are such a mess in larger code bases. I haven't seen anything like this before. FYI: I investigated them because from time to time I find some piece of code written for ca65 that does not compile with xa65, so I enhance xa's "compatibility mode". Unnamed labels were used in a Commodore PET DOS wedge I recently got, so I had a look... André ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Jul 30 20:57:15 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-07-30 20:57:18 CEST