Re: Re: picforth-1.2.3 problems

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> Jamie> I see how it follows the PicForth convention but, when in
> Jamie> assembler mode, I don't think the syntax should be differ from
> Jamie> the standards published in the PIC data sheets (apart from the
> Jamie> postfix notation).
>
> Well, you can define your own constants if you wish or use numerical
> values. But I prefer PicForth to act consistently between its Forth
> and its assembler mode.
>
Ok, I can understand that. I will use the PicForth style. As I mentioned;
now that I know, it's not a problem.

Thanks.
Jamie Lawson