George MacCayev wrote:
-------------------------------
3) To Jay C.Box: your ways are unjustifiedly complicated.

- - - - - - - - reply:
"unjustifiedly complicated"? That's relative.


George MacCayev wrote:
-------------------------------
3) Your second example doesnt work. Check it with R7=99.

- - - - - - - - reply:
George, look again. (100d-1)-99 doesn't set the carry and therefore doesn't take the jump to GTEQ (for 100 and above) and instead drops down through to LT.

99 is still LT 100 in Texas even after adjusting for inflation and currency exchanges. :)

The second example I wrote had a missing SUBB instruction and I spotted that in a following message correction. Are there other bugs included? Possibly.

Also, the code assumes that the variable of interest is in R7 and therefore is not destructive as someone else mentioned. Was it worth posting an independent message about that? Nope.


George MacCayev wrote:
-------------------------------
Please be more carefully in examples. The young developers look at you:-).

- - - - - - - - reply:
Naw... I don't worry about spelling errors, bad punctuation and program bugs. I interface with this forum through NETSCAPE and it doesn't have an inline compiler that I've discovered. I simply write off the top of my head, at times carelessly, to give them new ideas and things to think about. I expect anyone with the sense to post here to be able to correct any bugs within.

If I cared about my ego, then I would do as you suggest and post only validated code. Unfortunately, I don't care that much. :) I just visit the forum now and then to add a little variety to my day on the job.

Do I post error in my example code? Yep. Does this concern me? Nope. Do I always write bug-free code the first pass? Nope. Is that newsworthy? Nope.

Actually, I'm surprised there aren't more typos in the code I post considering how little time I give them.

Please excuse my Texas accent... :)

-Jay C. Box