Andrew Warren wrote : > Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > > > 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. Fine, I thought so :-) > 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. I Disagree. A bug is the 12f675.inc file is *much less* likely then is some "home made" source file, that also obviously doesn't work. > Omitting the include file removed one possible > source of errors. But introduces a number of new sources of errors. Nothing won, a lot lost. > > 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; No *new* lines needed, just replace the numeric contants with symbols. *At most* added a single line saying "I'm using MPLAB's include files", but I've never seen anyone saying that before, and noone have had any problem with that either... > 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. Which is exactly my point ! Use the include files as supplied with MPLAB. There is no reason to verify every EQU in those, are there ? > The original poster desired to post the smallest complete example > that demonstrated the problem he was having, and I think he > succeeded. It was not the *size* of the code I was talking about. Apart from those points, yes, we are in violent agreement :-) Jan-Erik. -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body