Jan-Erik Soderholm <PICLIST@mitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> If you supply your own include files, what would be the reason
> *not* to define (e.g.) GPIO to h'05' ?
>
> I can't see how your comment invalidates my request for symbolic
> constants in code snippets posted to the piclist.
>
> Or am I totaly missing your point ?

    You and I are in violent agreement; symbolic names are usually
    desirable in code posted to the list.

    IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, though, I think that the raw constants
    were more useful.  I mean, we were looking for a software bug,
    and one could just as easily have been in the include file as in
    the asm file. Omitting the include file removed one possible
    source of errors.

    The program we were trying to debug was only six or eight lines
    long.  I don't think that doubling its line count by including
    equates for constants used only once would've helped much; after
    all, we'd have had to verify that "5" was the correct definition
    for "GPIO" even if the 5 had appeared in an EQU instead of a
    MOVWF.

    The original poster desired to post the smallest complete example
    that demonstrated the problem he was having, and I think he
    succeeded.

    -Andrew

=== Andrew Warren -- aiw@cypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.