6f3
Subj : Re: Win98 error
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : Bob Gonder <notbg@notmindspring.invalid>
Date : Sat Mar 13 2004 03:36 am

Thomas Maeder [TeamB] wrote:
>Bob Gonder  writes:


Thing is, it isn't an int, it's a scalar.
And if you say it's an int, doesn't the compiler treat it as an int,
with all the demotion/promotion/signedness problems of ints?

I kinda like the macro's capability to be any type/size
	long	L;
	int	i;
	short	s;
	DWORD	d;
	if( anyoftheabove < macrovalue )
doesn't complain about comparing signed and unsigned values.
Also doesn't need to promote, say s to an int. At least, thats what I
would assume that "const int c" would mean compare int c to short s

>The main problem is that you can very easily break code at one end of a
>program by #defining a macro at the other end because macros don't respect
>scopes.

Yeah, I don't do that.
All my Macros are file in scope (clearly outside of all functions).
And I try to keep my files in the 1-600 line range which cuts down on
potential conflicts.  Haven't been bit by a hidden macro yet. And the
compiler complains if a macro is redefined accidentally.

>I agree that *this* is a problem. One of the leading principles in the design
>of the C language was to keep the number of keywords low; C++ follows this
>principle as well. The result is that all but one of the meanings of keywords
>such as static and virtual are confusing at least.

Yeah, I searched for several weeks or maybe months for a "private"
keyword so my local routines wouldn't clash with same-named locals in
other modules.... Static... who'da thunk it?  (I also tried to find
the "public" equivalent as ASM is Private unless declaired Public, so
logicaly, C should be too.)

.

0