• From: Joel Rees <rees@s...>
• To: Al Snell <alaric@a...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:09:32 +0900

Simon St Laurent wrote:
> > I still remember that peek(-16384) was the means of reading keystrokes
> > on an Apple II, but I kept a reference card around for all the rest.

and Al Snell replied:
> Modern programming languages would read:
>
> #define KEYSTROKE_IOMAP_ADDR -16384
>
> int getkey() {
> return peek(KEYSTROKE_IOMAP_ADDR);
> }
>
> for human consumption, but would actually store:
>
> pushl (-16384)
>
> for execution :-)

Yeah, but not when compiling for an Apple II.

Hmmm. Talking about indirection and things meant to be read by machines, . .
.

Joel Rees
jreesmf@m...

• References:
  • Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: off-topic but probably well-formed :)
• Next by Date: Re: APIs, messaging
• Previous by thread: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Next by thread: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread