Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: two's complement idea
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:19:43 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <8636e7bvog.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <qppva0$cbj$1@news.albasani.net> <chine.bleu-5DC1AD.19552804112019@reader.eternal-september.org> <qpqv6g$kc3$1@dont-email.me> <86tv7dcfxr.fsf@linuxsc.com> <a2c1701c-c742-4cb6-92b7-e18df807f83e@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dce185ee50ea005ee4a34884a21fb89a"; logging-data="26629"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RULleozsAzcXikZeD2B6CRG3OZ/PSRJw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wwU+x6pPHRPffr9y/+3iQc2+oqk= sha1:PHDZ/5wS7ggJivxhZUrodPSsZkc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:70089

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:

> On Saturday, 9 November 2019 15:55:38 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
>
>> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 05.11.2019 03:55, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <qppva0$cbj$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>   Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What would realls speak against that numieric_limits<type> would include
>>>>> a flag whether a type has a two's complement and maybe another flag that
>>>>> says that a type has a two's complement wrap-around?
>>>>
>>>> #define ONESCOMPLEMENT (-1==~1)
>>>> #define TWOSCOMPLEMENT (-1==~0)
>>>
>>> Nice idea.
>>>
>>> But please use `constexpr` or `const` declarations, not macros.
>>>
>>> Using macros conveys the idea that macros are a reasonable solution to
>>> the problem of naming a compile time constant.
>>
>> Why do C++ fans hate the C preprocessor so much?
>
> It is not hate.  We prefer to use macros when what these do can not
> be done as simply by using inline functions, templates or constants.
>
> Reasons are that macros are names that ignore scope and work on
> textual substitutions.  Macros are harder to debug and cause
> unanticipated effects and confusion in clumsy hands.  However for
> teams that manage to hire members with godly hands macros are
> fine. :D

This doesn't answer my question.  I understand that macros have
shortcomings in some applications.  The question is why do C++
fans hate using macros even when, like here, the shortcomings
don't apply?