On Wednesday 27 February 2008 11:16, Micha Nelissen wrote: > Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:44, Michael Schnell wrote: > >> You can avoid cryptic language constructs in the main source code. > > > > Or you can avoid cryptic languages altogether. :D > > You mean like ADA? Indeed, I agree :P
No, I meant languages which are not able to give me bit level control over a type and have to circumvent this restriction with either awkward "macro magic" or even can't do nothing at all. If I mean to set the write buffer water mark of the SDRAM controller register, I'd rather write: |SDRAM_Buffer_Control.WB_Watermark := Sixteen; instead of |SDRAMBufferControl := (SDRAMBufferControl and not WB_WATERMARK_MASK) or | WB_WATER_MARK_16; Not even to think of the much more cryptic C version. Vinzent. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
