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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #8244 > unrolled thread

#define with semicolon

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 11:19 -0700
    Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 12:38 -0700
      Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 12:56 -0700
        Re: #define with semicolon Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 21:09 +0100
        Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 13:30 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> - 2011-07-14 13:03 +0200
          Re: #define with semicolon Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 05:27 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-07-15 10:54 -0400
            Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 09:05 -0700
              Re: #define with semicolon Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-15 11:49 -0500
          Re: #define with semicolon Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-21 15:31 +0200
            Re: #define with semicolon "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-22 01:51 +0100
        Re: #define with semicolon Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 13:51 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 14:01 -0700
            Re: #define with semicolon Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 14:14 -0700
        Re: #define with semicolon Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-07-13 17:10 -0600
          Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 16:20 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-14 14:03 +0300
        Re: #define with semicolon Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-14 01:22 +0100
        Re: #define with semicolon Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-22 15:50 +0300
          Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 21:46 +0000
            Re: #define with semicolon Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:54 +1200
              Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 22:21 +0000
                Re: #define with semicolon Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-23 00:12 +0000
                  Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 00:37 +0000
                    Re: #define with semicolon Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-07-23 09:55 +0000
                Re: #define with semicolon Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2011-08-11 00:04 -0500
            Re: #define with semicolon Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-07-22 15:54 -0600
            Re: #define with semicolon Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-23 01:14 +0300
              Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 22:28 +0000
                Re: #define with semicolon Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-23 02:52 +0300
                  Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 00:14 +0000
            Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-22 16:52 -0700
              Re: #define with semicolon Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 00:07 +0000
    Re: #define with semicolon Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-13 13:04 -0700
    Re: #define with semicolon Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-07-13 17:11 -0700
    Re: #define with semicolon Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-14 08:11 -0400
    Re: #define with semicolon pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-07-14 08:24 -0400
    Re: #define with semicolon "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-14 17:34 +0200
    Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 04:12 -0700
      Re: #define with semicolon Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2011-07-15 14:49 +0200
      Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-15 08:37 -0700
        Re: #define with semicolon "cc" <scatnubs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:03 -0700
      Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 09:23 -0700
        Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 10:37 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-15 13:07 -0700
            Re: #define with semicolon Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 13:26 -0700
              Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-15 13:31 -0700
                Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 08:55 -0700
                  Re: #define with semicolon "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-19 14:12 -0700
                Re: #define with semicolon "cc" <scatnubs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:05 -0700
                  Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:18 -0700
                    Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-19 11:23 -0700
                      Re: #define with semicolon cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:31 -0700
            Re: #define with semicolon "cc" <scatnubs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:05 -0700
        Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-15 10:51 -0700
          Re: #define with semicolon "cc" <scatnubs@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:04 -0700
            Re: #define with semicolon "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-20 00:53 +0100
              Re: #define with semicolon Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-07-19 16:57 -0700
    Re: #define with semicolon gordonb.ethca@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-15 10:33 -0500
    Re: #define with semicolon Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2011-07-22 10:55 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#8606

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:50:42 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:

> Thanks for reporting it (and for others such as Keith for responding to
> it, as I don't read googlegroups posts). Let's hope we don't see any
> more of those for a while.

Posts to comp.lang.c are not GoogleGroups posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8607

On 07/23/11 09:46 AM, Todd Carnes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:50:42 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reporting it (and for others such as Keith for responding to
>> it, as I don't read googlegroups posts). Let's hope we don't see any
>> more of those for a while.
>
> Posts to comp.lang.c are not GoogleGroups posts.

A number of old school Usenet users ignore posts from groups.google.com.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8614

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:54:29 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:

> A number of old school Usenet users ignore posts from groups.google.com.

I see. I think it's a silly thing to do, but I guess it's no different 
than the way I refused for years to give in and get a cell phone. Sooner 
or later they'll get over it...just like I did. :)

Todd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8620

On 2011-07-22, Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:54:29 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>> A number of old school Usenet users ignore posts from groups.google.com.

> I see. I think it's a silly thing to do, but I guess it's no different 
> than the way I refused for years to give in and get a cell phone.

Well, maybe.  If people with cell phones called you, did it result in
conversations with them being broken up into 1-minute sub-conversations
scattered around apparently randomly?

... Come to think of it, maybe that is a sort of good analogy.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8621

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:12:38 +0000, Seebs wrote:

> On 2011-07-22, Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:54:29 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> A number of old school Usenet users ignore posts from
>>> groups.google.com.
> 
>> I see. I think it's a silly thing to do, but I guess it's no different
>> than the way I refused for years to give in and get a cell phone.
> 
> Well, maybe.  If people with cell phones called you, did it result in
> conversations with them being broken up into 1-minute sub-conversations
> scattered around apparently randomly?
> 
> ... Come to think of it, maybe that is a sort of good analogy.
> 
> -s

LOL... Yes, in the beginning, it often did. :)

Todd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8626

Todd Carnes wrote:
) On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:12:38 +0000, Seebs wrote:
)> Well, maybe.  If people with cell phones called you, did it result in
)> conversations with them being broken up into 1-minute sub-conversations
)> scattered around apparently randomly?
)> 
)> ... Come to think of it, maybe that is a sort of good analogy.
)> 
)> -s
)
) LOL... Yes, in the beginning, it often did. :)

ObRandomQuote:
Call-phone sex: Can you feel me now ? And now ? How 'bout now ?


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9188

On 7/22/2011 5:21 PM, Todd Carnes wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:54:29 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> A number of old school Usenet users ignore posts from groups.google.com.
>
> I see. I think it's a silly thing to do, but I guess it's no different
> than the way I refused for years to give in and get a cell phone. Sooner
> or later they'll get over it...just like I did. :)
>
> Todd

Depends on how good you are at ignoring or filtering out the
heavy flow of spam from groups.google.com.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8608

Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:50:42 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reporting it (and for others such as Keith for responding to
>> it, as I don't read googlegroups posts). Let's hope we don't see any
>> more of those for a while.
>
> Posts to comp.lang.c are not GoogleGroups posts.

checking...  in this case, the original question was, as was the OPs
followup pointing to the #define in the kernel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8613

Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:50:42 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for reporting it (and for others such as Keith for responding to
> > it, as I don't read googlegroups posts). Let's hope we don't see any
> > more of those for a while.
> 
> Posts to comp.lang.c are not GoogleGroups posts.

I'm not quite sure how a post from googlegroups can be anything but a
googlegroups post, but if in your twisted little world that's how
things are, I hope you're happy there.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8615

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:14:08 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:

> I'm not quite sure how a post from googlegroups can be anything but a
> googlegroups post, but if in your twisted little world that's how things
> are, I hope you're happy there.

Sheesh, don't get your panties in a bunch.

While users on GoogleGroups may post to a usenet newsgroup, they also may 
post to groups that are not on usenet... i.e. a GoogleGroup. I'm only 
saying that comp.lang.c is not a GoogleGroup. It's a usenet group.

Todd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8617

Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:14:08 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> 
> > I'm not quite sure how a post from googlegroups can be anything but a
> > googlegroups post, but if in your twisted little world that's how things
> > are, I hope you're happy there.
> 
> Sheesh, don't get your panties in a bunch.

Hypocrite.
 
> While users on GoogleGroups may post to a usenet newsgroup, they also may 
> post to groups that are not on usenet... i.e. a GoogleGroup. I'm only 
> saying that comp.lang.c is not a GoogleGroup. It's a usenet group.

Care to cite where I said otherwise?

For a while I used to have aioe.org /en bloc/ in my killfile too due
to the low SNR therefrom, you have reminded me of those days.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8619

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:52:21 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:

[blah, blah, blah... snip]

> For a while I used to have aioe.org /en bloc/ in my killfile too due to
> the low SNR therefrom, you have reminded me of those days.
> 
> Phil

Whatever.

Believe it or not, I really was sorry you took offense (at first), but if 
you want to get all worked up over one little comment, go right ahead.

As for me, I consider the conversation (what little there was of it) to 
be over.

Todd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8616

Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:50:42 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:

>> Thanks for reporting it (and for others such as Keith for responding to
>> it, as I don't read googlegroups posts). Let's hope we don't see any
>> more of those for a while.
>
> Posts to comp.lang.c are not GoogleGroups posts.

I presume that by "googlegroups posts" he means articles posted to
Usenet via the Google groups interface.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8618

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:52:20 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

> I presume that by "googlegroups posts" he means articles posted to
> Usenet via the Google groups interface.

Yeah, I get it now. I took it the wrong way at first.

Todd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8254

cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> writes:

> Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
> such as:
>
> #define SMALL 1;

No, I'd assume that was a typo.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8269

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:19:53 -0700 (PDT), cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
>such as:
>
>#define SMALL 1;
>
>I didn't think it was, but a very good friend of mine claims it's
>perfectly acceptable if you want to prevent the #define from being
>used in an expression like if(SMALL).

Acceptable is in the eye of the beholder.  If you are at work, it is
whatever standards your company adopts.  If you are at home, it is
whatever your preference is.

The only thing perfect about is that it is perfectly legal syntax.

I don't find it acceptable at all personally but there is no reason
why you or anyone else reading this should care what I think.

-- 
Remove del for email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8278

cc wrote:

> Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
> such as:
>
> #define SMALL 1;
>
> I didn't think it was, but a very good friend of mine claims it's
> perfectly acceptable if you want to prevent the #define from being
> used in an expression like if(SMALL).

I wish I had a nickel for every customer call I have taken over the last
30 years where a semicolon at the end of a #define changed an
expression. The worst ones are when an expression is split in two and
creates two valid statements. No compiler errors or warnings just
application anguish.

Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8279

cc wrote:
> 
> Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
> such as:
> 
> #define SMALL 1;
> 
> I didn't think it was, but a very good friend of mine claims it's
> perfectly acceptable if you want to prevent the #define from being
> used in an expression like if(SMALL).

The only macro construct that I'm familiar with,
which is designed to be a statement,
is this:

#define macro   \
do {            \
} while (0)

That gives you a compound statement 
in which you can do various things, 
such as defining objects etc..

But the semicolon is left out of the macro
so you are forced to have
the semicolon being obvious in code like this:

   macro;

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8284

"cc" <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ab0d55fe-25e5-482b-811e-c475aa6065c3@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
> such as:
>
> #define SMALL 1;

i think you can not use that in this below
if(a>SMALL)  b=c;
and this not compile at last i hope so
could be ok in
a=SMALL;
or
a=SMALL b=c;

> I didn't think it was, but a very good friend of mine claims it's
> perfectly acceptable if you want to prevent the #define from being
> used in an expression like if(SMALL).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8308

On Jul 13, 2:19 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is it acceptable practice to have a #define with a semicolon in it,
> such as:
>
> #define SMALL 1;
>
> I didn't think it was, but a very good friend of mine claims it's
> perfectly acceptable if you want to prevent the #define from being
> used in an expression like if(SMALL).

It seems as though some people have taken issue with my
characterization of the situation. First off, it wasn't a very good
friend, but actually someone I don't even know. It was a Usenet thing.
That was supposed to be a joke for others reading, but one person was
very upset and called me a liar. So no, it wasn't "a very good
friend." Also, they seem to have an issue with the way I presented the
situation. Here is the full post:

"'The semi-colon will be expanded as part of the macro, causing the
printf to fail to compile.'

Correct - but in reality what I actually do is exploit that to make it
intentionally fail!

e.g. I could easily write


  if(SMALL) { do something } else { do something else }


That is bad programming - for the most part, I know I would never
write   if(SMALL) ... because if I set SMALL to 2,3,4, then everything
is OK when configuring the software, but if accidentally set SMALL to
0 the execution of the if() statement will change and that would have
been an unintentional side effect.

If I accidentally wrote the code with if(SMALL) it will not fail
especially hard to spot the mistake if it is buried in a complex
formula. And there is no warning of impending doom.

So by putting semicolon in #define SMALL 1; I've made sure on
compiling it it is guaranteed to fail when used out of context."

So that's the whole quote (of which I see no difference in what I said
before), so if you feel differently about it being poor coding
practice I would like to hear why again. Also I'm sorry I jokingly
called someone I don't know, my very good friend. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web