My suggestion as a temporary work around would be to apply a namespace prefix to the variables in your macro.
Create the macro with short variable names x. Test Replace variable names with uniques ones MACRO_DOIT_x Release If included in another file, your users don't have to see the munged code underneath. Juan Brandon Van Every wrote: > On Nov 2, 2007 4:13 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Brandon Van Every wrote: >>> On Nov 2, 2007 3:44 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I have an idea. What if we created a variable_scope command? >>> Bad markerting idea. Nobody programs in this idiom. (Well, I don't >>> know about Perl, as far as I'm concerned they're nobody. ;-) Lotsa >>> people program with functions and would expect a scripting language to >>> have functions. Minimize the number of "CMake specific weird things" >>> people have to learn, if you want more users. SETLOCAL is not so >>> objectionable, didn't some Unix shells have this historically? >>> >> The problem is what does SETLOCAL mean? There is no scope in cmake >> right now. So, I guess you are saying add functions. > > Yep. > >> I am not even >> sure what those will be... Many languages have the idea of scope. >> Braces in C++. This would just be a way of creating scope. > > Then add braces. Not some begin_long_thing_word end_long_thing_word. > Nobody does that, nobody will like it. > > > Cheers, > Brandon Van Every > _______________________________________________ > CMake mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake > > -- Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800-538-8450 Ext. 54395 512-602-4395 _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
