A brief recap:

Eric Smith posted the following bit of code which tests whether the
value in W is in the range [loval-hival], inclusive:

>        addlw   256-hival
>        addlw   (hival-loval)+1
>        btfsc   status,cf
>        goto    inrange

Adrian Kennard then posted a response which used twice as many lines
of code to do exactly the same thing.

Eric responded as follows:

> If either of you had bothered to actually try my code, you would
> have found that it works correctly, except that the 256 should
> have been 255.  This minor error resulted in the whole range being
> offset by 1.

At this point, Adrian still didn't get it.  He wrote:

> OK, post the correct code.
>
> You code may have an out by one error, but it must also be mising a
> skip after the first addlw, otherwise the carry is entirely based on
> the second addlw, overwriting the first addlw. Some examples might
> be a good idea.

    Adrian:

    Before you embarrass yourself further, please take a moment to,
    as Eric suggested, "bother to actually try the code".

    It works perfectly.

    -Andy

Andrew Warren - fastfwd@ix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geopages.com/SiliconValley/2499