From -3657521502008689569 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,765aa557d15ef5ba X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Thread: fc772,a175c482da34ebf8 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-11 02:57:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail From: LLeweLLyn Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated,comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Preprocessor evolution Date: 11 May 2003 06:00:00 -0400 Organization: The Illusory Sorting Algorithm Lines: 56 Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Approved: francis.moderator@robinton.demon.co.uk Message-ID: References: <652361f.0304032218.6b7a67e4@posting.google.com> <3e920e1f.883270640@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <7f2735a5.0304241045.14708662@posting.google.com> <7f2735a5.0305081132.10b62f29@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUAPr1HJeEDnX0m9pzZAQHPuwGAoSGiLHUFQyCxjbRUqRI9IlJqNWVxjH2e 3hJDCscvUL9WdPfzcVeSlMov4FTcXzik =aDo8 X-Approved-For-Group: Fergus Henderson comp.std.c++ X-Original-Date: 10 May 03 18:38:14 GMT X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPr4fHUHMCo9UcraBAQEBgAH8D6qsuP8QY7yhcEvNbEpVhj8qKPsK4cDA nNislhM2InVMEOWdFLsxSh4T4WHhPxwNDaUJCw8LUqv9yXdBERVDDA== =NFKx Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++.moderated:65833 comp.std.c++:19343 allan_w@my-dejanews.com (Allan W) writes: > > > LLeweLLyn wrote > > > > Also, since the preprocessor is not going away, I would like to see an > > > > alternative to function like macros that do not require such > > > > things as the do{}while(0) idiom and parentheses around all > > > > arguments. I can't think of a good way to express this (yet) but > > > > that's what I want. > > > allan_w@my-dejanews.com (Allan W) writes: > > > How about making them functions -- but still expand inline? > > > We could call these "inline functions." > > > > > > :-) > > LLeweLLyn wrote > > Rewrite this macro as an inline function: > > > > #define TRACE() do{\ > > if(debug_this_module) {\ > > logfile << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << ":" << endl; logfile\ > > << dump_stack_trace();\ > > }\ > > }while(0) > > > > :-) > > // USAGE: TRACE(__LINE__); > void TRACE(int line=0) { > if (debug_this_module) > logfile << __FILE__ << ": " << line << ":\n" << dump_stack_trace(); > } I think you miss half the point. Requiring the user to specify __LINE__ and __FILE__ is only an opportunity for error. (In pracitice, I always use __func__ or __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ where available, as well as __FILE__ and __LINE__.) Further, __FILE__ expands to a string literal containing the file name. If TRACE is used in a file different from where it is defined, your definition will print the wrong file name. > If dump_stack_trace can be modified to accept a parameter int ignore=0, > then TRACE() could be changed to pass in 1, meaning "ignore the very > first stack frame". > > :-) As a student, I consistently used functions for this sort of thing - but after I started working professionly, I switched to macros - so much easier, despite their problems. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]