SteveF wrote:I must admit I got a bit nervous on seeing your long post and expected you'd found a lot of bugs, so I'm glad it all seemed OK.
Yeah, by the time I'd finished testing I realised I had quite a long post that really didn't say very much. But thank you for making the couple of changes.
SteveF wrote:We could possibly get a cheap fix for this by having beebasm_srand() make a few calls to beebasm_rand() and discard the results before returning - what do you think?
Sounds good, it would probably only need two or three calls to give the appearance of randomness, which is all that's required.
SteveF wrote:BeebAsm was writen by Rich Talbot-Watkins but is now maintained by the members of the 'stardot' forums. The official source repository is at https://github.com/stardot/beebasm. Please post any questions or comments relating to BeebAsm on the 'Development tools' forum at stardot: http://www.stardot.org.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=55
Sounds good. It would be sensible to use the github bug tracker because bugs reported here can easily be forgotten, but directing people here in the first instance is likely to lead to more visibility and discussion.
SteveF wrote:What do people want to do about credit for their contributions? The pattern so far seems to be to mention people by name in about.txt (e.g. Thomas Harte gets a mention under the PUTBASIC command and some people get a mention in the changelog). We could stick an "acknowledgements" section in about.txt and bung it all in there.
beebem also notes contributors for each release in the changelog. That seems to work pretty well.