Am Fri, 13 May 2011 12:18:48 +0200 (CEST)
schrieb mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort):
> I'm with Michael with this. While I see some valid usecases, I think
> the way to introduce a solution (macros) is worse than the problem.
>
> Also I want to stress again what Florian said, namely that macro
> support is not a solution for easy header conversion. It might look
> that way, but won't work.
>
> For large scale and/or specialistic use, simply preprocess the sources
> before compiling.
The use cases of macros are spread over a wide field because they
represent a concept which is different from the one of a compiled
language. It is more like an build-in automagicaly working editor.
Maybe we can find an other maybe even better solution for every
single use case, is it an reason against the concept?
From time to time I think, would be easier done with macro and
parameter.
OK doing a separate preprocessor run is a solution (m4 not -for me-),
if it is not incorporated in the compiler, which would be nicer.
Maybe it is the wrong place for discussing this, because I know the
reasons against some kind of macro support are all on the side of the
designers and implementors.
The mean line is IDE and they have their own stuff doing similar
things and i am not interested in IDE.
Jörg
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
