On 2019/06/11 01:55, Eric Deplagne wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 14:39:36 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
>
>> I hand formatted it, and substituted in the value
>> of the define: ",close(". But the problem is since the compiler
>> handles the above, shouldn't 'indent' be able to as well?
>>
>
> Clearly, a #define with both "," and "(", NO.
>
?clearly? Clearly it doesn't and maybe you are saying it cannot, but whether
or not it 'should' would depend on one's goals or what one wants to
accomplish in the program.
> Just remember the preprocessor can do almost any dirty trick
> (is cpp formally turing complete or not ?).
>
I would have no idea if any given instance of cpp is formally or informally
turing complete. Given the things one can do in macro languages as a
form of declarative programming, I wouldn't doubt that someone might be able
to prove it so, but I'm not sure how that would help w/the problem.
I thought the easiest way might be to have indent put markers around
defines so that once a substitution was done, indent could do its normal
processing and could find the markers and undo the substitution, resulting
in something that should achieve that desired goal.
However, I'd admit it was alot of work for what might be edge cases, so it
really depends on how compete the implementor wants indent to be as compared
to what a 'c' compiler handles.
Whether it is fixed or not, isn't going to affect me much, as I don't
use such convoluted constructs, as a general rule, in my own code (too much
headache in maintenance later trying to figure out what I was doing!)
As far as useful fixes, I'd much prefer to have had the RFE I submitted
looked at, but I sorta realized it wasn't likely to happen after no
comment(s) for a few months....*oh well*....supporting old SW is just really
no fun if one has moved on to other things...and if it is no fun, how can
you get motivated on something one did "on the side". FWIW, the RFE I
was talking about -- was the RFE I'll copy in below, but I'm not doing so
much in C these days, so its probably not that important now either.
Still, the above obfuscated code might make a good test case if it ever
got to the point of being tested... :-)
----
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: RFE: option to 'cuddle' bracketless targets of
conditional statements
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:46:43 -0800
From: L A Walsh <ind...@tlinx.org>
To: bug-indent@gnu.org
I didn't see this option in my version of 'indent'
(GNU indent 2.2.10), so forgive me if it is already there, but
would it be possible to add an option to put or keep things like:
if (done) return done;
if (done)
return done;
for(i=0; i<100; ++i) printf("%d\n", i);
while (! done) done=get_status();
on 1 line?
Primarily thinking about bracketless targets that follow a conditional
that easily fit on 1 line.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
bug-indent mailing list
bug-indent@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-indent
