On 5/17/07, Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, jerry gay wrote:
good comments... but why keep both function and macro? which would you
prefer keeping over the other, and why? i can't understand why both
exist.
In src/debug.c, for handling user input, I don't see
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:45:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
here's a macro to move to the next argument (kjs mentioned in an
earlier thread that this isn't a descriptive name)
/* na(c) [Next Argument (Char pointer)]
*
* Moves the pointer to the next argument in the user input.
*/
here's a macro to move to the next argument (kjs mentioned in an
earlier thread that this isn't a descriptive name)
/* na(c) [Next Argument (Char pointer)]
*
* Moves the pointer to the next argument in the user input.
*/
#define na(c) { \
while (*c !isspace((int) *c)) \
On 5/16/07, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:45:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
here's a macro to move to the next argument (kjs mentioned in an
earlier thread that this isn't a descriptive name)
/* na(c) [Next Argument (Char pointer)]
*
* Moves the
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:36:48AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
good comments... but why keep both function and macro? which would you
prefer keeping over the other, and why? i can't understand why both
exist.
Yes, sorry, I sort of missed that part.
Er. I don't know. One deserves to die.
Nicholas
On Wed, 16 May 2007, jerry gay wrote:
good comments... but why keep both function and macro? which would you
prefer keeping over the other, and why? i can't understand why both
exist.
In src/debug.c, for handling user input, I don't see any particular
advantage to the macro version. The
