ASM Community

Now, these "anonymous" labels were never implemented. But you can use local labels instead.

With all due respect...

I do not think its a good ideea. Local labels are enough.

Anonymouse lables are nice only for the much too lazy writter that wants to copy and paste :P

After all its much easyer to read code (by others and yourself after a long time) with labels that actually mean something.

And with name space colision eliminated as for local labeles everything its OK.

IMHO of course

I don't see the point to have an assembler still in development if everytime an user asks for a feature, its branded as useless or wrong... that is were the laziness is : not even wanting to think about the problem deeply. :mad:

Imho an assembler must allow the most common coding style... and for people that have many MASM codes to reuse in MASM, it would facilitate the porting...
I'm not saying to integrate all the MASM feature in it and follow MASM syntax exactly, but if you want to have a popular assembler, you have to integrate popular features and it doesn't make the assembler worse but better as it is more flexible... and please more users.

Is it about making an assembler or creating a new langage with a strict semantic defined by what some users think as right or wrong?

I'm not critizing FASM because it doesn't have the features I need (the assembler is still in development, after all), but that everytime I suggest something, "good-thinking" people say that is not useful and won't be implemented for this reason only...

:mad:

Bazik: _1: means nothing, @@ means anonymous label. It is clearer to me, but I don't must be sane...

Privalov, thanks, that was my question.
It wasn't against you but critizing the other people coding styles behind the development of an assembler somewhat irritates me...

Finally 1.40 beta 2 has them implemented: http://fasm.metro-nt.pl/fasm140b.zip

The file looks suspiciously identical to Beta 1. Is it just me?

Of course, I'm wonder if this feature could be created with macros...

Well, you could do something like:

macro @@

 {

   local ..label

   ..label:

   @b equ ..label

 }



@@

   jmp @b

but it can't handle @f references, allows to define only one kind of label, and last but not least: is less elegant.