Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2008
Entering the Wayback Machine... Either of my proposed patches for CXINC
would have been correct, and would still be correct, but the latter one
would be better.
My first CXINC patch[1] wasn't all that great; it turned a possibly useful
numeric "return" value into a void. Larry avoided it because he worried
that the older compilers of the day would get indigestion if ?: had a result
of type void. I could have recast the macro as a <do {} while (0)>
a.k.a. STMT_BEGIN / STMT_END, but maybe back then I didn't know about it(?).
Whatever, we could do that today, but CXINC() would then not be valid in an
expression.
My second CXINC patch[2] was superior to my first patch and to Larry's, but
it simply arrived too late, as Larry's was already in and a release was
imminent.
PS: Shirley, CXINC isn't part of the public API. (?)
[1] http://markmail.org/message/jw4rbjk4jmys2hud
[2] http://markmail.org/message/coq4fwfzxgmcxa6m
--
Chip Salzenberg twitter:chipsalz
"UTOPIA PLANITIA IS IN ORBIT is the new HAN SHOT FIRST" - Crisper Than Thou
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next