Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Excellent.
> The 'PI' source should NOT specify whether to define nor whether to call
> the inline form vs the real function form.
My fault for not thinking in the PI mindset.
> >> 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!).
Of course! My first and proudest contribution to Perl was a fixup of
xsubpp's #line directive emission. :-)
--
John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\\\ ///
]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[
/// \\\
