Why not

mov wc.hInstance, 400000h

For a 4k intro, and *perhaps* for a 64k intro... then it's okay.
But a call to GetModuleHandle isn't bad bad when you don't have
to twist and turn and squeeze your app by the byte. And it makes
it a little more likely that your app will run on future windows versions,
under emulators, ......

Dirty coding should have died with dos ;). (At least in released
projects... I enjoy little things like this in my own test pieces :)).
Posted on 2002-01-31 22:07:40 by f0dder
Hutch, i am not at all pushing my own work in my previous post.
You may have notice that i post lesser and lesser anouncements
here (whereas releases are going on). I am pushing (with zero
real hope), the free Assemblers developpement. I don't care
a lot of which one of NASM, FASM or SpAsm. There is enough
room for each, as the authors approachs and users requests may
be very various. There is even, actually, one another author
who is finishing his Assembler, a close sources and shareware
one (!!!...), that i try to help as well as i can by testing
his beta at the same time i am writing the SpAsm integrated
Disassembler. See what i mean?

I well know that the SpAsm all-in-one approach is completely
unusual for an Assembler. If it was not my first intention,
i would simply have translate NASM in NASM Assembly. This
answers to your point 1.

For point 2, will not restart the "Should the Assemblers
envolve?" thread, but, my answer is "yes, and i am doing it".
This choice can not cover all of users requests, as, as you
may have seen there, the envolving directions are far from
similar, (and many include their own contradictions).

For point 3, there *is* a feature in SpAsm to paste saved
chunks of Sources, and in Version 4, there will be one more
feature for splitting Sources into parts. For a real standard
'Include' KeyWord, my answer is "never", sorry.

Posted on 2002-02-01 03:31:08 by Betov