Well, in that case, if RS are to add more macro functionality ala C, I think
it would be vital to have some visual aids to help maintain readability of
the code. Two things come to mind:
1) allow a means of visually flagging any macro statement - for example by
italicising, colour, or bold typefacing etc...
2) provide a means in the IDE editor of "hiding" any macro branches that do
not apply to the current build settings ( ie platform, macro flags,
constants etc ). In other words so we can simply hide #if..#endif branches
that test negative.
2) only works properly if we DONT allow #define type compile "flags" to
be set/reset on the fly. Since I think it would be a very bad idea to have
compile-time flags or variables anyway, 2) should be fine in RB.
I just think there needs to be a very clear and readable way of seperating
application logic from compile-time logic if we are goung to start using
macros like in C.
On 28/11/06 16:06, "Lars Jensen" <larsjensen at gmail dot com> wrote:
>> I would rather see inlining implemented in RB rather than new macro keywords
>> or macros with arguments - basically because inlining is more type safe.
>
> I would rather see macros because they are more general and useful;
> since any text can be an argument, they can handle inlining,
> zero-footprint asserts with code output, types as arguments, etc.
>
> lj
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives of this list here:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|