On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 06:12:27AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > On 2012/04/01 05:00:25, Graham Percival wrote: > >it would be much nicer if there was a macro for this. > > It is better to define macros for just the part inside the for(...) . > Then we can write, and auto-indenters can indent, > > for (UP_and_DOWN(d)) > { ... } > for (LEFT_and_RIGHT(d)) > { ... }
ooh, I like that! I really, really like it! > However, is a macro nicer ? Yes, absolutely. > The first time every new contributor sees this loop form, she has to > take the time to understand it. The macro adds two steps to initial > understanding: realizing that this must be a macro, and then searching > for the macro definition. I disagree. If there's a macro like that, used everywhere in the code base, then as a new contributor I'd be happy assuming that it does what it claims. If UP_and_DOWN(d) was broken, then surely there'd be tons of breakage all over the code. I consider this a useful abstraction. Now, there should probably be a paragraph explaining those two macros in the CG. But that's a minor detail. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
