From: keith@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun Visualization Products)
Subject: Re: re: conditional compilation
Date: 14 Dec 89 20:07:27 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1033@jetcomp.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7403@hubcap.clemson.edu
In article <7403@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>
> Conditional compilation would introduce an entirely new mechanism;
> such a move must be justified in terms of benefits which cannot
> reasonably be obtained using existing mechanisms. The situations
> cited thus far do not appear to satisfy this requirement.
As of this reply to dave emery, you still haven't dealt with the fact
(brought out by dave and myself) that your proposed construct (using
a component named Y twice) is illegal.
I generally respect your views, but in this case, I think the fact
of the matter is that people are already using preprocessors. Standardizing
to some syntax would simply make it easier to integrate the true source code
with smart editors, debuggers, etc.
prev parent reply other threads:[~1989-12-14 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1989-12-12 0:08 conditional compilation Emery
1989-12-12 13:14 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-12-14 20:07 ` Sun Visualization Products [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox