> Doesn't the latter cater for complete portability? It probably
> caters for twice as much overhead; or does the assembler take
> care of that all upon code assembly ?

It's a bit swings and roundabouts. I think without exception
registers like PORTA/GPIO on 12/16 PICs are always in
bank0, TRIS/TRISIO are in bank1. 18s are not banked so
BANKSEL is unnecessary. If 12/16 code might one day be
ported to an 18 or whatever comes in the future then it would
be best to use a universally compatible style. I suggested
grouping registers with a common bank together to cut down
on clutter - I have a slight leaning towards that, but not at the
cost of code screwing up. I did say that you might rationalise
when you get to know the PIC better, but you should take
note of Olin's comments

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist