I do not agree to your comments. The author has so kindly offered his codes, and even a suitable assembler for free with his source codes. He also provided a clear explanation of the difference between Microchip's and his version.
I disagree. A clear explanation would include something along the lines of "Note that many editors will not load the source files as-is. If you want to use this in some other editor, then you will first need to delete the line of control codes at the end of each source file".
Remember this is free stuff, the author has every right to provide his coding in any format convenience to himself.
I neither said nor implied that he had no right to supply it in any format he wants. He could provide the code with comments in Sanskrit for all I care. It's still providing example code with a hidden stumbling block (albeit a small one). If one wants people to consider a source to be useful, there is no reason to include that line. That's his right, just as it's my right to consider it bad form and to use other, better-formatted example sources if available.
For the record, I also don't like the fact that (some) editors have the annoying habit of refusing to load a file flat-out because it contains a line of control codes.
If you are a linux program writer, can someone blame you for not providing window's EXE in your package?
False analogy: expecting a Linux code base to produce Windows binaries (which would need to be linked against Windows DLLs and use Windows system calls) would simply be nonsensical. Expecting that files purporting to be ASM text files be presented as simple text files should not, however, be too much to ask.
There are simply enough sites providing good examples using standard ASCII that there is not really any reason to use examples from a site which makes the user not only jump through one more hoop, but investigate and discover what that hoop actually is. Many people will likely just see the line about this being in Parallax format and automatically assume that they need the Parallax editor to view or edit the files.
If the author felt like spending the extra four seconds or so required to save each file twice (once with control codes, once without) or even add a line of text to the main page of the site explaining how the user can remove the control codes (which are useful only in one editor) that would, in my mind, make it perfectly fine.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's evil or stupid or anything like that. I just think it's bad form.
Torben