-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistent formatting of register section titles #163
Comments
What's the status on this? There's been a lot of cleanup recently, we should survey the document on whether this has been fixed. |
Section titles can be checked using some ungodly regexes, so I'll see to this this evening. sed -E 's,^.*<h[1-6]\s+id="[^"]+"><a(\s+[^=>]+="[^"]*")*>([^<]*)</a>.*$,\2,;t;d' docs/pandocs/print.html |
Another inconsistency we have is I suggest |
|
Since we're changing all reg descriptions, I'll say that I'm fond of neither current style ( Additionally, we need to set a rule for when a register is partially readable and partially writable (or both). The current style seems to be not to mention the property at all, and I agree with it. |
Another note: make sure to correctly differentiate "CGB only" (= the register is writable even in compat mode) and "CGB Mode only"; this should also be defined somewhere. (At this point, I think that #194 wouldn't be enough, and we would additionally need a "Conventions" page...) |
If a register has unused bits, but all the usable bits have the same accessibility (e.g., SVBK), it should be labelled by the usable bits. If usable bits differ in accessibility (e.g., P1/JOYP), not mentioning it at all should be okay, since the list of bits will need accessibility indicators anyway. As for CGB registers, that could be marked in the same parenthetical to avoid bracket overload: |
That's reasonable when registers are mostly bitfields, but the GB has many that aren't. For instance, there's no reason to specify a per-bit accessibility of SCX. |
Given that we don't specify bits individually, but whole bitfields at once, this would be less of a burden. |
Original OP below.
#124 changed the register anchor format from
ADDR - NAME - Descr (R/W)
toADDR - NAME (Descr) (R/W)
, but the old style is still present elsewhere (e.g.IF
still uses it).Which format do we want to settle on (not necessarily either of these)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: