Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #8121

Re: flowto (Just for fun)

Show all headers | View raw

"luser- -droog" <mijoryx@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:080e3750-fb58-472f-b7c6-5276cbccb9c0@hi9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> Dr Nick wrote:
>> luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Saturday, July 2, 2011 1:58:27 AM UTC-5, io_x wrote:
>> >> "Shao Miller" <sha0....@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> news:iul55q$a22$1@dont-email.me...
>> >> i prefer- and all goes well- C macro if without arg
>> >> something as
>> >> #define  nome1  0x123
>> >
>> > This is better as an enum
>> >   enum { nome1 = 0x123 };
>>
>> Very debatable.  I really don't like the use of enums just as isolated
>> symbolic constants, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
>
> I meant that more as a challenge to io_x. If he were to write a
> program
> entirely without macros, maybe someone would read it and offer
> useful comments.

i use define when a number has one meaning that has to be show in the
code for readability reason.
it is not one variable [space in memory were there is one number]
it is just a number.

> Also I've seen it that way in Kernighan code (alright, it was limbo,
> but

the one with enum{}
the true is this: less keyword exist, easier is all, better is for me;
const and enum are for me eliminable
nothing is const

this is just my way of see that, i make errors

> same diff) so whatever rationale there might be has got to be good.
>
> --
> appeal to authority fallacy?

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: flowto (Just for fun) luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 00:03 -0700
  Re: flowto (Just for fun) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 08:06 +0100
    Re: flowto (Just for fun) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:34 -0400
    Re: flowto (Just for fun) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:39 +0300
      Re: flowto (Just for fun) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-07 17:09 -0700
      Re: flowto (Just for fun) gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 03:10 -0700
        Re: flowto (Just for fun) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 04:44 +0300
          Re: flowto (Just for fun) Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-07-10 08:51 +0000
            Re: flowto (Just for fun) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:52 +0100
              Re: flowto (Just for fun) Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-07-10 11:12 +0000
                Re: flowto (Just for fun) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 12:15 +0100
                Re: flowto (Just for fun) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 03:32 -0700
                Re: flowto (Just for fun) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-11 20:11 +0100
            Re: flowto (Just for fun) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 20:42 +0300
            Re: flowto (Just for fun) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-11 08:08 +0200
    Re: flowto (Just for fun) luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-10 23:51 -0700
      Re: flowto (Just for fun) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-11 09:15 +0200
  Re: flowto (Just for fun) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-08 20:06 +0200

csiph-web