Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C blocks
Message-ID: <1313@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 26 Dec 87 16:56:58 GMT
References: <470@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <1966@chinet.UUCP> <970@csun.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 21
Summary: A better way of doing this.

In article <470@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> edw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU (Eddie Wyatt) writes:
>Could the ANSI committee consider adding return values for blocks?
>If they where added, I could guarentee my macro arguments where only
>evaluated once as they are in function calls.

Having started (I think) a BCPL discussion with my first response to this
message, I'd like to suggest a better way of doing this:

inline max(a, b)
int a, b;
{
	return a+b;
}

"inline" would, of course, imply static.

As for "prior art", how about S. McGeady's "inline" processor, recently posted
to the net, from which I shamefully stole the idea?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.