>  I didn't say it was better.  But it is explicit.  And as far as
> 'BANKSEL'  is concerned, I assumed it was a macro.  I
> personally don't bother with macros.  To me, they tend to
> complicate things.   If you want to use them and like them,
> I have no problem with that.  I just like to write my code so
> it is easy to follow.  To me, the best way to that end is to not
> use macros, and write everything in a straight forward manner

IMHO you would be in a small minority, and I strongly disagree.
There's absolutely no reason why code written in any style can't
be straight forward, but IMHO, again, there's a minimum standard.
For one thing it makes code easier for other people to read and,
just as importantly, for the author in a year's time. By using macros,
defines and equs you are adding one more level of documentation
and that is never a bad thing (because the name is a descriptor),
apart from the fact that it saves one hell of a lot of typing, and macro
usage eliminates many typos being complied. A macro can be as
simple as putting an instruction into plain English, doesn't have to
be complicated (or bloatware) at all

The code posted in the last couple of days for accessing F877
EEPROM is a perfect example of how using macros and register
names improves readability (not having a dig at you Mr Gois,
honest). I find it extremely fatiguing and tedious debugging code
that's peppered with, for example, lines like BSF STATUS,RP0
or MOVWF 0x05. Imagine mistyping RP1 or 0x15. How many
hours would it take to find ? Hours that could have been spent
doing something constructive and not getting all pissed off and
frustrated. I really don't see how macros complicate things, I
really don't. Obviously YMdoesV

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads