joaquin> // is shorter than xxx_ What do you think about renaming
joaquin> xxx_UT_DEBUGMSG to just xUT_DEBUGMSG?
The "xxx_" form is better than a comment if the thing spans multiple
lines, but I reckon this is mostly a style matter anyhow. Of course,
the null macro could trick the unwary into depending on side effects.
If the name of the "xxx_" form were changed, I would prefer it be
changed to something more self-desriptive. E.g., "off_UT_DEBUGMSG",
but I don't see a big advantage to changing it in the first place.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
