...@hotmail.com
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: a nifty feature for c preprocessor
On 12/31/2011 4:44 AM, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17
#define B 153
#define N1 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A
#define A 230
i don't know if you're trying to be funny...
but what's between the definition of N1 and the undef of A may be a very
complex. it's just simplified for demonstration.
It's not good programming practice to have a macro (in this case A) have
two different values, with an #undef between then.
On 31/12/11 10:44, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17 #define B 153 #define N1
((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A #define A 230 #define N2 ((A + B)/2) /*
intended was (230 + 153)/2 */
On 01/01/2012 12:42 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/31/2011 4:44 AM, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17
#define B 153
#define N1 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A
#define A 230
#define N2
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17
#define B 153
#define N1 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A
#define A 230
#define N2 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (230 + 153)/2 */
printf(%u %u, N1, N2);
On 12/31/2011 4:44 AM, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17
#define B 153
#define N1 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A
#define A 230
#define N2 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (230 +
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:12:19 -0800
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Any gcc developer who feels that this proposal is a good idea, please
chime in here.
I personally do not feel it is worth the effort. It's easy to use a
more powerful macro processor, such as m4, to generate your C
On 29/12/2011 00:08, R A wrote:
And if you want portable pre-processing or code generation, use
something that generates the code rather than inventing tools and
features that don't exist, nor will ever exist. It is also quite
common to use scripts in languages like perl or python to generate
The gcc developers, and everyone else involved in the development of C
as a language, are perhaps not superhuman - but I suspect their combined
knowledge, experience and programming ability outweighs yours.
given. but do you have a consensus of the community that this feature is not
worth
R A ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com writes:
The gcc developers, and everyone else involved in the development of C
as a language, are perhaps not superhuman - but I suspect their combined
knowledge, experience and programming ability outweighs yours.
given. but do you have a consensus of the
The idea sounds useful to me ..
Or perhaps introduce template into C :)
David
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
R A ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com writes:
The gcc developers, and everyone else involved in the development of C
as a language, are perhaps not
given. but do you have a consensus of the community that this
feature is not worth including? i haven't even heard but from a few
people saying that it's not worth it because if it was, 'we're the
ones to have thought about it'.
No, that's not what people are saying.
It's important to take a
I personally do not feel it is worth the effort. It's easy to use a
more powerful macro processor, such as m4, to generate your C code. The
benefit of building a more powerful macro processor into the language
proper seems minimal.
This particular extension seems problematic when
On 29/12/11 22:05, R A wrote:
The gcc developers, and everyone else involved in the development
of C as a language, are perhaps not superhuman - but I suspect
their combined knowledge, experience and programming ability
outweighs yours.
given. but do you have a consensus of the community
R A ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com writes:
This particular extension seems problematic when cross-compiling. In
what environment should the expressions be evaluated?
why
are you asking for a specific environment? it's coding convenience and
elegance for coding in c itself. simplest case
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:50 PM, David Brown david.br...@hesbynett.no wrote:
On 29/12/11 22:05, R A wrote:
The gcc developers, and everyone else involved in the development
of C as a language, are perhaps not superhuman - but I suspect
their combined knowledge, experience and programming
---
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:30:04 -0800
Subject: Re: a nifty feature for c preprocessor
From: james.denn...@gmail.com
To: david.br...@hesbynett.no
CC: ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
.
I'd tend to agree; we ought to move functionality _out_
i meant general purpose macro processor. sorry.
On 28/12/2011 07:48, R A wrote:
i'm an amateur programmer that just started learning C. i like most
of the features, specially the c preprocessor that it comes packed
with. it's an extremely portable way of implementing metaprogramming
in C.
though i've always thought it lacked a single
To: ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: FW: a nifty feature for c preprocessor
On 28/12/2011 07:48, R A wrote:
i'm an amateur programmer that just started learning C. i like most
of the features, specially the c preprocessor that it comes packed
with. it's
On 28 December 2011 20:57, R A wrote:
templates, i have no problem with, i wish there could be a C dialect that can
integrate it, so i wouldn't have to be forced to use C++ and all the bloat
that usually come from a lot of it's implementation (by that i mean a
performance close to C i
:
a nifty feature for c preprocessor
On 28/12/2011 07:48, R A wrote:
i'm an amateur programmer that just started learning C. i like
most of the features, specially the c preprocessor that it comes
packed with. it's an extremely portable way of implementing
metaprogramming in C.
though i've always
And if you want portable pre-processing or code generation, use
something that generates the code rather than inventing tools and
features that don't exist, nor will ever exist. It is also quite common
to use scripts in languages like perl or python to generate tables and
other
sorry:
2) it takes very little penalty, otherwise.
i'm an amateur programmer that just started learning C. i like most of the
features, specially the c preprocessor that it comes packed with. it's an
extremely portable way of implementing metaprogramming in C.
though i've always thought it lacked a single feature -- an evaluation
feature.
25 matches
Mail list logo
