ASM extensions

[Walter Bright]

Gabe wrote:
> How difficult would it be to alter the inline assembler to accept paramter
> arguments for new default syntaxes?  For instance, you could have something like
> asm(intel) or asm(gas) or asm(arm) or asm(hal).  That way somebody could
> progromatically decide the base style of the assembly syntax they were going to
> use.  It doesn't seem to be internally inconsistent, as virtually all assembler
> code should be written in 'version' tags anyway, as I see it.

Very time consuming - you'd have to write whole new assemblers.

> Also, is there anything in the works for a somewhat simpler syntax for closures
> (i.e. anything like passing Ruby code/Proc blocks)?

Simplifying it further would require dynamic typing.