Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:


> Yes, a big deal of the "features" in Olin's code, is managed
> by the assembler. All that is lost with object libraries.

Hi Jan-Erik,

Thanks for your comments as well.

Yes, definitely Jan-Erik. This is one of the reasons Olin told me as well.
One thing I'm attracted to with a binary library is the same reason I like
DLLs in the PC programming world.

I guess it might be best to start with a source code library first and
manage things from that perspective for a while.


> Anyway, with great discipline and planning of your subroutine
> interfaces, object libs could still be usuable...

It's nice that MPASM will simultaneously accommodate source files, object
files, and libraries. That's a good thing!

> Absolutely, as long as you let *us* learn from it :-) :-)

Well, this is all for the benefit of trying to work smarter instead of
harder.


Thanks for your time,

Ken Pergola

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