Wrong comment type in ASM files

[Frost-Phoenix]

Hi, I am currently trying to learn 6502 assembly and I am using micro as my text editor.

But every time I use the keybind to inset a comment (ctrl+/), a # is added instead of a ;.
I don't really understand why this appends, the file extension I use is .asm and micro recognize the file language as asm.

[JoeKar]

The reason is simple, because there was no asm added to the comment plugin yet...
https://github.com/zyedidia/micro/blob/fa317456e91c97af1b2c68f1e657ab426d035929/runtime/plugins/comment/comment.lua#L9-L62
...and in case nothing fits # is the default comment style.

[dmaluka]

The problem is that different assemblers use different syntax for comments. Or the same assembler can use different syntax for comments for different architectures.

For example, GNU assembler supports # comments but not ; comments: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/Comments.html

[JoeKar]

For example, GNU assembler supports # comments but not ; comments: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/Comments.html

Hm, I can remember the old times when I was told that ASM comments start with ; ¹²³.
But yes, in principle you're right, that in different flavors different styles apply. I thought ; is the de-factor standard...

Footnotes

1. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/X86_Assembly/Comments ↩

2. https://onlinedocs.microchip.com/oxy/GUID-E06F3258-483F-4A7B-B1F8-69933E029363-en-US-2/GUID-1B5B6895-C735-4C19-9354-A257E358D16A.html ↩

3. https://onlinedocs.microchip.com/oxy/GUID-4DC87671-9D8E-428A-ADFE-98D694F9F089-en-US-4/GUID-BBE45106-B745-44BE-B666-E49933BC54F0.html ↩

[dmaluka]

BTW you can also override it in settings.json:

    "ft:asm": {
        "commenttype": "; %s"
    },

[JoeKar]

Looks like there is no real need for #3694 due to ambiguity of the language.
Still a bit inconsistent looking at @Andriamanitra's quote in #3694 (comment).

[Frost-Phoenix]

BTW you can also override it in settings.json:

    "ft:asm": {
        "commenttype": "; %s"
    },

That's perfect, didn't know about that, thanks.

Looks like there is no real need for #3694 due to ambiguity of the language. Still a bit inconsistent looking at @Andriamanitra's quote in #3694 (comment).

As far as I'm concerned, the workaround works perfectly.

[JoeKar]

Ok, then we close it as "solved".