Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!tank!shamash!nis!sialis!orbit!pnet51!shawn
From: shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: NOTE
Message-ID: <647@orbit.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 89 16:45:10 GMT
Sender: root@orbit.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 13

blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak) writes:
>	"INA" may be the official way to code the instruction, but "INC" or
>"INC A" are the De Facto standards in the Apple // world... I personally
>think that "INC" makes more sense (with the "A" optional depending on how the
>assembler handles the accumulator addressing mode.

However, my personal opinion is that "INA" makes more sense, since it's so
much like "INX" or "INY".  (But then, it really is my personal opinion, isn't
it?  And I use "INC A" out of habit, since some assemblers I used to work with
didn't support "INA".)

UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn
INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com