Thank you for advices!
Probably, I'll stick to global definitions.
It seems, that {$IFOPT} doesn't help conserve space when you have to switch
checks somewhat often, while greatly helps write code fragments for injection.
(A line starting with {$Q-}, then simple expression, ending with some {$IFDEF
..}...{$ENDIF} sequence seems more readable to me than a company of extra lines
or beginning with {$IFOPT}/{$IFDEF}: fewer symbols for eyes to make through.)
From: Vinzent Hoefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, if you do define CHECK_OVERFLW depending on the current compiler's
> settings like this:
> {$IFOPT Q+} {$DEFINE CHECK_OVRLW} {$ENDIF}
> then ...
> > {$Q-} e:=f+g; {$IFDEF CHECK_OVRLW} {Q+} {$ENDIF}
> ... this looks like one of the easiest ways.
>
> Well, my practice is to use more lines, so that the instruction(s) in
> question don't get hidden by all the compiler-directives surrounding
> it.
From: Alexey Pavluchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> {$IFOPT Q+} {$Q-} {$DEFINE Q_SWITCHED} {$ENDIF}
> (* do some stuff here *)
> {$IFDEF Q_SWITCHED} {$Q+} {$UNDEF Q_SWITCHED} {$ENDIF}
> May not fit in one line though :)
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
