Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx1!hugh
From: hugh@hcrvx1.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C-Debug package ... (a la "context-independent macros")
Message-ID: <1097@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 12:05:48 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1097
Posted: Mon Jan 28 12:05:48 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 03:40:54 EST
References: <1885@wateng.UUCP> <1089@hcrvx1.UUCP> <33@daisy.UUCP>
Reply-To: hugh@unix.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier)
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 18
Summary: 

In article <33@daisy.UUCP> pkl@daisy.UUCP (Peter K. Lee) writes:
>>  whenever I define a macro to be a
>> (compound) statement, I put braces around it.  There are two places
>> where braces cause problems: IF statements with ELSE clauses and
>> DO statements:
>>					hugh@hcrvx1
>	# define macro(args)\
>		if (1) {\
>			/* macro body */\
>		}\
>		else
>If you think that "if (1)" is silly and may generate inefficient 
>code, you better go find a better compiler.
I think this is silly.  I guess I better go find a better compiler,
but for what language?  Seriously, several people have suggested
this, but I remain repelled.  I think I will stick with my braces
and accept the occasional syntax error (they are easy to fix, and
braces never lead to undetected errors).