Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!brownell
From: brownell@harvard.ARPA (Dave Brownell)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: expressions and #if
Message-ID: <319@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 06:45:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: harvard.319
Posted: Mon Jul 16 06:45:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 06:21:12 EDT
References: <2104@rlgvax.UUCP>
Lines: 27

Contrast smarter and smarter CPP constant evaluation with the approach
taken in Ada, which is to insist that the compilers optimize out unreachable
code.  I frankly prefer this;  contrast

    #ifdef	FEATURE
	if (not_otherwise_indicated()) {    /* el hacko gross-me-out */
    #endif	FEATURE
	process ();
	...
    #ifdef	FEATURE
	}
    #endif	FEATURE

(which I have seen in some System V code, by the way) with code like

    if (FEATURE == disabled || not_otherwise_indicated()) {
	process ();
    }

I don't think I'm alone in preferring the second option.  In heavily
parameterized with #ifdefs or #ifs this seems sooo much more readable ...

Thoughts/flames, anyone ???


Dave Brownell
{allegra,floyd,ihnp4,seismo}!harvard!brownell