Here's what Mars said about inlining: <http://
support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/realbasic-nug/2006-10/
msg00801.html> so it's doubtful we'll see user controlled inlining
anytime soon (or ever) and that's one reason I'm pushing for macros.
You know exactly what you're getting yourself into with macros rather
than relying on compiler magic, but I'll take what I can get at this
point...
Frank.
<http://developer.chaoticbox.com/>
On 27-Nov-06, at 7:19 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote:
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.
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>
