Add "builtin" macros to the assembly about etk HOT 4 CLOSED

Should we differentiate between functions, like selector() that compute a value, and include() which copies opcodes?

from etk.

We could use %include "..." instead?

from etk.

There's also two possible use cases here:

1. Separating code logic - in which case, the code should not have been processed yet
2. Writing a contract deploy wrapper - here, the code should have been processed so the label values are filled in.

I'm inclined for include(...) to do the first, but not certain how to handle the second. assemble(...) maybe? include_assembled(...)?

from etk.

I think there are actually three cases:

1. Unassembled instructions, for organization/reuse.
2. Assembled instructions, for initcode.
3. Copy bytes, for including the output of other tools, special data/constants, etc.

I like include(...) for (1), and maybe include_bytes(...) or include_hex(...) for (3).

As for (2)... I think I'm partial to include_asm or include_assembled.

I think we want user-defined macros that generate instructions to look the same as the include macros. I don't know if that means using a % or something else. I guess as long as we're consistent?

from etk.