> I've seen much code written this way and I use this technique all the=20
> time when writing my own code.  It works, its efficient, its=20
> readable, its maintainable.  What more do you want?

It works, I agree. But I disagree very much with readable, and (as a=20
consequence) with maintainable. The fact that the OP had trouble with=20
this code is proof that it is confusion, at the very least.

At the moment I am wring a small course on 'propper' programming (in C,=20
but that is almost irrelevant). I would qualify a technique like this=20
(relying on PORT/TRIs adresses being the same) as a 'last resort': don't=20
use it, unless you absolutely must. To quantify it: if you use such a=20
technique, write 20+ comment block that explains the technique and why=20
it is absolutely necessary to use it. That will deter most=20
'unreasonable' uses.

PS the offending code fragment:

 >>         BANKSEL TRISD
 >>         movlw   0x00
 >>         movwf   PORTA
 >>         movwf   PORTB
 >>         movwf   PORTC
 >>         movwf   PORTD

does not benefit from this 'technique' in any way. Using the TRIS=20
registers would result in exactly the same code.

PPS: can you show a piece of code that really benefits from this technique?

--=20

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.