Quoting Bert Wesarg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Tony, > > this is probably a better solution than what I see in your current > macro.c with the MACRO_BUILT_IN_IMPL() > > I.e. put all these MACRO_BUILT_IN_IMPL() into a new file and than > include this with a appropriate MACRO_BUILT_IN_IMPL() definition.
As you did with the interpreter ops? I don't know. The advantage of the separate file approach is that compilers with low limits on macro expansion can cope. I don't know how many there are still out there (suspect older OSs - VMS, MVS, older SunOSs). The disadvantage (or rather aesthetic bother) is the creation of a separate header file which (1) countains references to static functions (true for interpret and macro) and (2) is only included by one file (true for macro). Better IMO would be to split out the macro.c file into separate "functional modules" - but I like others before simply keep in adding! So I prefer the way I've done things (no new file) but recognise that your way may be better. Either way, the X macro technique does make maintenance easier, don't you think? Tony -- NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected] http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
