Frank, I would rather see inlining implemented in RB rather than new macro keywords or macros with arguments - basically because inlining is more type safe. It also ( if implemented well ) would give you much of what macros with arguments could give. I think it would be a bad idea to add macro things like #define. This is because you then have to debug not only the run time algorithms but your compile time algorithms as well. Not nice.
In C/C++ this often gets used to allow type definitions and such to be varied dependent on platform, useful - for sure - but I would rather like such problems ( if encountered ) handled in different ways. Most of the time such issues would arise in my view is when interfacing with the outside world via declares. In such cases the chief datatype being used is the Structure. Thus it would be nice if in future - just like one can define constants with different values for different platforms within the IDE, it think it might be useful to be able to define the same structure in different ways according to platform in similar fashion to constants. On 27/11/06 19:58, "Frank Condello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I want macros to make up for a lack of inlining. Mars has > said in the past that RB would more likely get auto-inlining rather > than user-defined inlining, so although macros are useful for > shortening/reusing/targeting code they are also intrinsically inlined > (by a pre-process rather than the compiler) and would fill a void in > RB's functionality. Like most other things, macros can be as ugly or > as elegant as you make'm - if MFC macros bug you, then don't do stuff > like that ;) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
