Xref: utzoo comp.arch:5911 comp.lang.misc:1745 comp.lang.c:11707
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: using (ugh!  yetch!) assembler
Message-ID: <1152@garth.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 20:23:30 GMT
References: <6341@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <60859@sun.uucp> <474@m3.mfci.UUCP> <11699@steinmetz.ge.com> <856@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

>                                                 I wonder how difficult it 
>would be to use an overloaded operator weakly typed assembler.  Some think that
>C is this; maybe it was intended as a replacement for such an object, but it
>fails badly.

Compass macros can implement something akin to overloaded operators and typed
operands, although the 8-character limitation is difficult.

On the 205 assembler, Meta, our project had procs (=macros) to do things like

          WHILE      P,EQ,TRUE                    while p do
          IF         [T_EXP,L,EXP_OPCD],EQ,O_RADD   if t_exp[l].exp_opcd=o_rad
          THEN                                       then
          GFIELD     T_EXP,L,EXP_OP1,L                l:=t_exp[l].exp_opcd
          ELSE                                       else
          CALL       XYZ,[L,IN],[P,OUT]               xyz(l in,p out)
          IFEND                                     ifend
          WHILEND                                  whileend