Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!killer!pollux!bobkat!m5
From: m5@bobkat.UUCP (Mike McNally )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: typeof(), like sizeof() (Was: Question on structures)
Message-ID: <3025@bobkat.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 10:06:46 EST
Article-I.D.: bobkat.3025
Posted: Mon Nov  9 10:06:46 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Nov-87 04:08:30 EST
References: <1025@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3022@bunker.UUCP> <150@fxgrp.UUCP>
Reply-To: m5@bobkat.UUCP (Mike McNally (Man from Mars))
Organization: Digital Lynx, Inc; Dallas, TX
Lines: 26
Keywords: life, macros, and everything

In article <150@fxgrp.UUCP> ljz@fxgrp.UUCP (Lloyd Zusman) writes:
>with a slightly different approach you might want to try ...
>
>#define WITH(Name, Type, Struct)  { Type *Name = &(Struct);
>#define ENDWITH                   }
>
>Lloyd Zusman, Master Byte Software, Los Gatos, California
>"We take things well in hand."
	cute
>...!ames!fxgrp!ljz

On a related but completely different topic:  does anybody else think that
a "typeof(thing)" would be useful?  Seems like it would make a lot of macros
easier and cleaner.  What are the philosophical issues behind extending
(or the reluctance to extend) the preprocessor?  Would more powerful macro
capabilities actually introduce a new world of obscurity to the language?

Anyone wishing to respond to this should do so by mail if hopeful that I
receive the thoughts; I only read news before I get enough caffeine into
my body to avoid the deadly "rn" command.

-- 
Mike McNally, mercifully employed at Digital Lynx ---
    Where Plano Road the Mighty Flood of Forest Lane doth meet,
    And Garland fair, whose perfumed air flows soft about my feet...
uucp: {texsun,killer,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!m5 (214) 238-7474