From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.129.232 with SMTP id l101mr33712978ioi.14.1438089486115; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:18:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.23.50 with SMTP id 47mr532169qgo.24.1438089485970; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!pg9no4681043igb.0!news-out.google.com!4ni82428qgh.1!nntp.google.com!z61no3785670qge.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:18:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1ipfeas9434z5.o8661mp0cpkh.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.203.145.32; posting-account=AFCLjAoAAABJAOf_HjgEEEi3ty-lG5m2 NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.203.145.32 References: <1ckwx9hern944$.1w0k6fbvlqo62$.dlg@40tude.net> <1ipfeas9434z5.o8661mp0cpkh.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <75a31df9-801e-4e7f-8e29-403c0650c891@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS? From: EGarrulo Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27085 Date: 2015-07-28T06:18:05-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 2:54:50 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:06:29 -0700 (PDT), EGarrulo wrote: > > But this means a 2/1 ratio of noise to signal. > > Actually it is 3/0 vs. 1/0. Why? If there are 2 lines of noise for each line of signal, then the ratio is 2/1, isn't it? > Preprocessor is never a way. Indeed it shouldn't. A preprocessor is a workaround for the limitations of a programming language. Ideally, you shouldn't need a preprocessor, but -- alas -- how many languages make a preprocessor redundant? > You can inline the suggested wrapper and hope that the compiler indeed does > inlining than effectively will make it lazily evaluated. I can't understand what you mean here. Would you please explain further? Thank you.