Hi Juergen, >> Hoping to see your marcos soon~ hehe. > > i am not fan of macros and the skeletonmaker can be already used for > both (declaration and forwarding). > I think it is no real overhead and changes are not so often.
Which is merely wrong - in case we're talking about API which is currently being developed. In such a situation, I often come across new facets of the problem which require the API to be adjusted (yes, this might be a deficiency of mine - finally, one should be able to first design properly, and then implement, right? :) About the "overhead": Feeding skeletonmaker with the type library path and the like arguments is not really fun. Doing this *every time* is *definitely* overhead compared to typing DECLARE_XFOO just *once* in the header. > I agree > that it would be or can be smart for the developer but not for people > who wants to read/understand Hmm? What's difficult to read about DECLARE_XFOO or FORWARD_XFOO? > or debug the code later on. Every decent debugger has a "step into" feature. Applying this to a FORWARD_XFOO line in the header is not much different from applying it to an explicit forwarding in the .cxx file. > Anyway i will think about it ... This is also what you said last time I brought up this idea/request :) Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
