Path: utzoo!yunexus!oz
From: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C's Limited Macro Capabilities
Message-ID: <5634@yunexus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 89 05:31:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: yunexus.5634
References: <69517@psuecl.bitnet> <11250@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 35

In article <11250@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser) writes:
>A simple macro processor, like the one we have, is a Good Thing.
>I am not so sure that a more powerful macro processor along the
>same lines would be.

I do not know what "more powerfull macro processor" means. How powerful is
powerful ?? [This is a trick question :-)]

> For one thing, the syntax of macro languages
>is nasty, and not conducive to good programming practice, and when one
>writes complex macros, in effect one is making use of a meta-programming
>language.

Bad syntax is a design problem, not a generic problem of macro processors.
As for "conducive to good programming practice", say, what was that language
in which we "obfuscate" ?? Perl ?? Naah, but close !! :-)

The difference between a meta programming language as opposed to a "real"
one is a matter of abstraction, if done properly.

>So my gut reaction to proposals for non-trivial extensions to
>cpp ...

I think CPP is beyond hope for future extensions. One could, however build
more interesting macro processors that can resemble CPP for the most part,
or perhaps not resemble it at all... There has been some subset cpps in
the past, and I have seen supersets as well. Bless that "little languages"
approach.

oz
-- 
There are two kinds of fool.   	       	           Internet:  oz@nexus.yorku.ca
One says, "This is old, and therefore good"        Uucp:  uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
And one says "This is new, and therefore Better"   Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
              John Brunner (The Shockwave Rider)   Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976