Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.CPS.COM (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Summary: Is this swap() macro correct?
Message-ID: <488@cpsolv.CPS.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 90 14:32:32 GMT
References: <1990Jan18.002842.441@aqdata.uucp> <4514@rtech.rtech.com> <790@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 15

In article <790@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>The second is a more general religious argument: Macros should feel like
>functions. As above, they should reference each argument exactly once;
>if an argument is modified, the macro should use a pointer to it instead;
>and so on.

If C only had inline functions, this would be all be so much simpler.  The
compiler would be able to handle the side-effects issues automatically.


-- 
  ==========================================================================
  | Richard H. Gumpertz    rhg@CPS.COM    (913) 642-1777 or (816) 891-3561 |
  | Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |
  ==========================================================================