Okay,=20

  It's sort of like the difference between machine language and
assembler.  If someone programs a part in=20
 machine language, and the accepted norm is assembler, that doesn't make
machine language wrong.  It just
 means that the programmer is coding differently.  The program will
still work, assuming they put the=20
 correct command and data in the right places.  But it isn't wrong.  It
deviates from the accepted practice
 of programming in assembler, but it isn't wrong.  It's just different.

 Normally I use labels for addresses.  In this case I used absolute
addresses because that way I am sure of
 what is going on.  In the case in question, I originally had the label
"BSR" in the code.  When that
 didn't work, I changed the label to an absolute address.  When that
didn't work either, I posted the
 question to the list.  I didn't change back to the label because I
didn't figure it was necessary.  Maybe I
 should have.  But as it turns out, the problem was elsewhere, and not
with the address anyway.

 I'll try to leave labels in my code when I post it.  But if I forget to
do that, maybe you or someone else
 can remind me to replace the addresses with labels if it will make it
easier to give an answer to my=20
 question. =20

 Anyway, I guess we've beat this dead horse enough.  I have my
preferences and you have yours.  And that is
 probably the way it will be for a while.  If the issue of me doing any
coding for you ever comes up, we can
 set the programming style at that time so we are always on the same
page.  That should eliminate any=20
 problems with what coding style is or isn't acceptable between us.

 It was good talking to you, and I understand you are trying to point
out semantic issues in my coding
 style.  I appreciate the effort.  But I have been programming my way
for so long, it may take several
 attempts to get me to change.  If you remind me enough and point out
the deficiencies from the accepted
 practices enough, one day I might just be programming in the accepted
style.

=20
 Regards,

 Jim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [FWD: [PIC]: PIC16F1827 PORTB Problem.] *** RESEND ***
> From: Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 2:03 pm
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
>=20
>=20
> OK.
>=20
> Generally speaking, you are wrong. :-)
>=20
> Just a very few points...
>=20
>  > ...and in a way that deviates from the generally accepted form.
>=20
> Which is one, not that uncommon, definition of "wrong". :-)
>=20
>  > Am I trying to get anyone else to use my form?  No.
>=20
> But you asked others to *read* your code.
> That makes a lot of difference.
>=20
>  > But if it works, then it make very little difference.
>=20
> It makes a lot of difference whan posting here where you
> expect others to aktualy read your code.
>=20
> But what's the fuzz ? I just pointed out that coding "0x08"
> is way worse then coding "BSR" at the same place. Are you
> actualy arguing *against* that ? If so, no I would probably
> not hire you for work... :-)
>=20
> Best Regards
> Jan-Erik.
> --=20
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


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