On 16/05/2011 14:30, Joerg Schuelke wrote:
Am Mon, 16 May 2011 14:07:54 +0100
schrieb Martin<f...@mfriebe.de>:
{$MyProc (Name) := procedure %Name%; begin}
...
{$Expand MyProc(Foo)} writeln(1); end;
Thats a point worth thinking about, but you say that it even can be done
today, do you think there is more harm extending the thing? Will think
about.
Se my other mail( 30 secs ago)
The more support there is for macros, the more likely people will start
whole libraries of macros.
first just a lort of small harmless helpers. Then combinations there
of... it grows, and then it becomes cancer (grows to something not
intended...)
But if let me quote "the real use cases ... are rare", then is it
still worth the risk (Even if the risk is small.
Do you remember all the writeln for debugging purposes? Hours and
hours.
They are the true reason to incorporate // comments. (a theory of me)
This may be a sign that the need would be there, if there is the
possibility.
I have a few of them in the code I wrote for lazarus.
I put all of them in their own IFDEF.
Making a clear statement at the very place of the writeln, that they are
conditional.
To me it increases readability.
Well and on top, the editor I use can color the IFDEF, just a nice add
on, but not a necessity => not an argument: Because the use (or none
use) of macros can and should not be decided by the cpacibilities of the
editors that individuals use.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
