On 05/11/2011 06:48 PM, Joerg Schuelke wrote:
I would introduce a macro expansion trough a compiler directive.
What a bout a compiler directive to optionally call the gnu C
preprocessor ? I would have wanted used this some time ago for a very
special project.
-Michael
___
On 12 May 2011, at 04:11, kingbiz...@gmail.com wrote:
> But something that has been pointed (by Joerg I belive) is the initialization
> of variables, what about it? This would be a nice thing and I don't see why
> not. I prefer to see:
>
> *var
> X: Integer = 0;
> Y: Integer = 100;*
This
On 12 May 2011, at 09:32, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 05/11/2011 06:48 PM, Joerg Schuelke wrote:
I would introduce a macro expansion trough a compiler directive.
What a bout a compiler directive to optionally call the gnu C
preprocessor ? I would have wanted used this some time ago for a
ve
Am Thu, 12 May 2011 09:32:28 +0200
schrieb Michael Schnell :
> What a bout a compiler directive to optionally call the gnu C
> preprocessor ? I would have wanted used this some time ago for a very
> special project.
Thats a merrily idea: This would mean writing macro definitions to a
temporary
On 12 May 2011, at 10:21, Jonas Maebe wrote:
b) it inlines the constents of {$include xxx} statements (so the
compiler-inserted debug information would no longer be correct
This is actually a general problem with preprocessed source files: the
line information inserted by the compiler will
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 12 May 2011, at 10:21, Jonas Maebe wrote:
b) it inlines the constents of {$include xxx} statements (so the
compiler-inserted debug information would no longer be correct
This is actually a general problem with preprocessed source files: the line
Michael Schnell schrieb:
What a bout a compiler directive to optionally call the gnu C
preprocessor ? I would have wanted used this some time ago for a very
special project.
IMO you can do that with build macros. But note that you'll have to use
the C macro syntax (#define...), for such stuf
