Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> From Olin Lathrop
>> Andrew Warren wrote:
>>> It's been ten years since I wrote any PIC code, and five years since
>>> I posted anything to the list, but apparently Olin is STILL arguing
>>> with me about Absolute vs. Relocatable code.  Sigh.
>> 
>> If this code really was written before the linker and relocatable
>> mode, then of course you had no choice. 
>> 
>>> Also, if you look at the structure of the code, you'll see that it
>>> depends on complex flow-control:
>> 
>> Which is exactly why it needs to be particularly well documented.
> 
> Only if you need to understand in intricate detail how it works. 
> It's a proven block of code that does what it says on the tin, so as
> a 'black box' it already has sufficient documentation to enable
> people to use it. 

This depends... You say that it is "proven", that it does what it says
on the tin, but how does one know? If you know Andrew, and know you can
trust his code as "black box", that's fine. But what if not? In this
case, I'd rather understand the code, so that I can judge this myself. 

If the code is above my understanding level, and I don't desperately
need whatever advantages the code promises, I'd rather go with code that
I can understand -- even if it's less optimized. In this sense, this
code may be "bad" code for the OP -- notwithstanding the possibility
that it is the most efficient solution for a given problem.

FWIW, don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Andrew and his
capabilities... :)

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