> I don't understand -- are you suggesting a naming convention, or are > you wanting some pre-defined global variables?
Yes, I am suggesting pre-defined global variables. > It is my understanding that JAL compilers go to great lengths to > recover the space, such that nothing is wasted. Have you done some > experiments to prove that space is actually wasted? Yes, you are right, it does by default for procedures, so maybe this isn't a reason to do so, but here is my situation. I always have to use the compiler's -no-variable-reuse, my scripts have a 3 second compile time with that compiler option. However, if I do not use -no-variable-reuse the same script will take 5 to 10 min to compile. Therefore, I am forced to use -no-variable-reuse. Every time I make a new junk variable, I get mad because, I am taking up space for something with no real purpose. But also, procedures like yours (shown below) could be shortened because there is no need to "var byte dummy", and also may make more sence with with jallib_junk_byte. The var name "dummy" is fine, but there are other examples that may use variable "x" or something else. > And ignoring a return value -- should be a fairly rare situation. your spi lib ignores the return value when only sending data. For me, this is taking memory space. -- half-duplex convenience function. send data to slave, discard reply procedure spi_master_hw'put(byte in data) is var byte dummy dummy = spi_master_hw_exchange(data) end procedure If this suggestion is not helpful to others, then there is no reason to do it. What do you guys think? Matt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
