John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But is usually much easier add entropy - so start with its the same
>> function - call it, and let compiler decide which ones to expand.
>
>You'll get no argument on that point. Please stop suggesting that I
>want to take the power of decision away from programmers *OR*
>compilers.
Fine. All _I_ am saying is if we write it as a normal function in 'PI'
we can easily spew either form. We don't need to decide now.
The 'PI' source should NOT specify whether to define nor whether to call
the inline form vs the real function form.
>
>> >If someone else wants to prove this, great. I just don't think it's
>> >that much trouble. (mostly psychological - what will people think if
>> >they see that all our code is in headers and all our C files are
>> >autogenerated?)
>>
>> We can unlink the .c files once we have compiled them ;-)
>
>Nope. Messes up source debuggers.
A. I was jesting.
B. There will of course have been lots of
#line "pp_hot.pi" 1417
directives so debugger refers you to what programmer wrote (this is _vital_ or
people hit their favourite hot-key and fixup the generated .c file not
the source!).
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
