"Variable already an alias" - is there a way to avoid this?

[richard]

So I believe, this "on the fly" port redefine is exactly this particular compiler issue, not general hardware or software limitation.

the ability to alter a defined constant at runtime would be make a total mockery of sound programming fundamentals .
changing a constants definition is not a thing .
runtime allocation of resources is not done that way in any programming language, pbp3 is not particularly adept at it but with a bit of imagination there are workarounds. the sort of output pin manipulation via port alias indexing can do what you desire (as henrik has stated ) .

while pbp3 has no str type vars it can deal with and create null terminated c-type strings easily, with a little practice and a little skills
strings can be manipulated in any way necessary with little fuss.


i would just say one more thing multiplexing ffs

[CuriousOne]

Why pin definition should be constant?

OK say compiler substitutes say code "LD, B(3)" which say means making PORTB.3 high each time I'm making HIGH BUZ because previously I had defined BUZ var PORTB.3

Now let's say, I want to do dynamic port re-mapping and at one moment BUZ is PORTB.3 and at another moment it is PORTB.4. What compiler should do? During the compile time, instead of replacing all references of BUZ with "LD,B(3)", it just places statement "LD,B(X)", where is X an address say in eeprom or ram, from which, during runtime, the number of port to be made high is being read. And when I need to force this statement to make say PORTB.4 high, I'll write 4 into that address, instead of 3.

I'm asking of something unusual and not previously done?

[Ioannis]

I really do not understand why you may need this.

At design time, you decide what you will connect on which ports. Then you proceed to writing the program.

At this stage you have lines that will be defining what your circuit will do, at compile time, and what decisions your code will do at run time. Your electric connection cannot change dynamically!

It just doesn't make sense, to me at least, why move around a LED or Buzzer, or Button from port to port at run time...

Ioannis

[CuriousOne]

Simple.

To make code shorter.

I've posted an example above. Yes it works but I have 40 subroutines and 40 IF THEN's in it. In case of redefinable port<>variable, it would be reduced 4 times.

[Ioannis]

I am sure there are other ways...

Ioannis

[richard]

you can lead a horse to water but ....

any pin can be addressed with PORTA.0[offset]

[CuriousOne]

So say

FOR A=1 to 20
HIGH PORTA+A
NEXT

will work?