Well, in that case, if RS are to add more macro functionality ala C, I think it would be vital to have some visual aids to help maintain readability of the code. Two things come to mind:
1) allow a means of visually flagging any macro statement - for example by italicising, colour, or bold typefacing etc... 2) provide a means in the IDE editor of "hiding" any macro branches that do not apply to the current build settings ( ie platform, macro flags, constants etc ). In other words so we can simply hide #if..#endif branches that test negative. 2) only works properly if we DONT allow #define type compile "flags" to be set/reset on the fly. Since I think it would be a very bad idea to have compile-time flags or variables anyway, 2) should be fine in RB. I just think there needs to be a very clear and readable way of seperating application logic from compile-time logic if we are goung to start using macros like in C. On 28/11/06 16:06, "Lars Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > I would rather see macros because they are more general and useful; > since any text can be an argument, they can handle inlining, > zero-footprint asserts with code output, types as arguments, etc. > > lj > _______________________________________________ > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
