>From: Poenitz Andre
>
>Koehne Kai wrote:
>> On quinta-feira, 9 de janeiro de 2014 07:28:07, Koehne Kai wrote:
>> > if qCWarning() would expand to an if (myCategory().isEnabled()) ...
>>
>> That's why it would have to expand to if (!myCategory().isEnabled()) {} else
>>
>> Well, we can't, since the << arguments are not part of the macro :) That
>> would end up with s.th. lie
>>
>> if (!myCategory().isEnabled()) { QMessageLogger(__FILE__, __LINE__,
>> __FUNCTION__).debug() {} else {} << >"Hello World";
>>
>> which doesn't compile.
>
>This is only a problem because you insist on creating partial statements
>with the macro instead of full statements.
True.
>If the "streaming syntax" would be
>
> qFoo(myCategory(), a << b << c);
>
>instead of
>
> qFoo(myCategory()) << a << b << c;
>
>there's no "else" to worry about,
Right, but I can't say that I prefer the first syntax over the second, all the
contrary.
> and it would also solve the problem of
>a "compile time" "null stream":
>
> #define qFoo(stream, stuff) /*nothing*/
Well, right now it resolves to
'while (false) QMessageLogger::noDebug() <<', which is the same in effect,
isn't it?
>We had this discussion before.
Could be :)
Kai
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
