"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:35, Hollis Blanchard wrote: >> > I don't like it very much. My first draft was exactly like this. But, >> > after some discussion in the IRC, I decided to revert my idea, because >> > specifying so many parameters by hand really sucks. It is too >> > error-prone. >> >> Bits are less error-prone? > > Less typing is less error-prone.
What is the problem with typing? I do not think this is really complex? And this is just in the initial stage of the implementation of an operating system. I don't think this is a problem, I think something that is clear from the context, which is the case in Hollis' proposal will prevent such errors. >> How about this: >> MB_START_TAGS() >> MB_LOADADDR(0x1234) >> MB_ENTRYADDR(0x1234) >> MB_END_TAGS() > > How to abbreviate information does not matter. When one implements an OS, she > must put the definition at somewhere anyway. Even if we provide a sample > implementation, not all people won't use it, because there are various > assemblers and compilers. For example, if our example is for GNU as, nasm > users won't use it. So the spec must be simple. Can't this be done with nasm? -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
