Docstrings considered too complicated

[MRAB]

Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> MRAB wrote:
>> Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>> Mel wrote:
>>>
>>>> You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle 
>>>> "Clear The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First".  Destinations are 
>>>> commonly a lot simpler than sources
>>>
>>> That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
>>> where the source and destination are both very restricted
>>> and often about the same complexity.
>>>
>>> That's not to say that right-to-left is the wrong way
>>> to do it in an assembly language, but there are less
>>> misleading words than "move" that could be used.
>>>
>>> Z80 assembly language uses "load", which makes things
>>> considerably clearer:
>>>
>>>   LD A, B  ; load A with B
>>>
>> Some processors distinguish between "load" (memory to register) and
>> "store" (register to memory), and the destination and LHS operand of
>> binary operations might be the same register, for example:
>>
>>     CLC ; clear the carry
>>     LDA first ; accumulator := byte at first
>>     ADCA second ; accumulator := accumulator + byte at second + carry
>>     STA result ; byte at third := accumulator
>>
> Guys, you sound like people arguing about old school TV show / series 
> like star treck :-)
> - "He was wearing a blue suit !"
> - "Check episode number 29, he appeared with a pink one!"
> 
> I'm glad I'm too young to had to code in assembler, or to bear the 
> vision of those unlikely space suits from the 70's ;-)
> 
Ah, yes, Star Trek (the original series).

If they transported down to a planet and there was a man in a red shirt
who you'd never seen before, he'd be the one to die! :-)

BTW, the first programming I did was in hexadecimal (C4xx was "LDI xx").