From -2981866341438369339
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fc772,a175c482da34ebf8
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,765aa557d15ef5ba
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-03 17:42:01 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: LLeweLLyn <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Preprocessor evolution
Date: 3 May 2003 20:44:09 -0400
Organization: The Illusory Sorting Algorithm
Lines: 30
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Approved: kuehl@inf.uni-konstanz.de
Message-ID: <m1k7d915u6.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
References: <652361f.0304032218.6b7a67e4@posting.google.com>
 <3e8f6897.709822312@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <d6651fb6.0304070135.2222325e@posting.google.com>
 <3e920e1f.883270640@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <d6651fb6.0304090204.3dec4b7@posting.google.com>
 <d6651fb6.0304110620.6f41227f@posting.google.com>
 <NJjmmaB4T9l+EwYj@robinton.demon.co.uk>
 <3e9f0d33@andromeda.datanet.hu>
 <RHqB1kAqQTo+EwzI@robinton.demon.co.uk>
 <m1u1cr4a3r.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
 <7f2735a5.0304241045.14708662@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
X-Approved-For-Group: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> comp.std.c++
X-Original-Date: 03 May 03 14:08:32 GMT
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPrRiVkHMCo9UcraBAQHW/AIAkwj0TEy04t5IlscEgd52W2i8Kf24YL2I
	Kiajw0DzMhaRExLNs/smvfRa2Rhuh9J9qdOWz95al1Xaid4GyMiNZw==
	=/DJl
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++.moderated:65305 comp.std.c++:19163

allan_w@my-dejanews.com (Allan W) writes:

> LLeweLLyn <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com> 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.
> 
> How about making them functions -- but still expand inline?
> We could call these "inline functions."
> 
> :-)

Rewrite this macro as an inline function:

#define TRACE() do{\
    if(debug_this_module) {\
        logfile << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << ":" << endl; logfile\
        << dump_stack_trace();\
    }\
}while(0)

:-)
---
[ 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                       ]