Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" |
| Date | 2014-04-08 19:39 -0400 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <5344889A.20407@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <UXx0v.127047$ew1.29978@fx19.am4> <lhudkb$efu$1@dont-email.me> <4Sz0v.75086$Yw3.15453@fx15.am4> <li093i$svh$1@dont-email.me> <TJ_0v.147431$Bj3.3238@fx09.am4> |
On 04/08/2014 06:27 PM, BartC wrote:
> "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
> news:li093i$svh$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 07/04/14 17:52, BartC wrote:
> [On the distinction between an actual constant, a named actual constant, and
> a variable that may or may not have a read-only attribute]
>
>>> You're saying we should just forget about such distinctions, and leave
>>> it up
>
>> Yes, we should forget about these distinctions. They are not true or
>> realistic anyway, so why try to pretend that they are?
>
>> Remember, a C compiler is /not/ a translator - it does not translate C
>> source code into assembly. It takes a /description/ or /specification/
>> of a task, written in the more-or-less carefully defined language C, and
>> generates object code that will have the same /visible/ effect as the
>> specified task.
>
> The distinction can be there in the /language/. Clearly not directly in C
> because it doesn't have such a language construct, but some people who want
> to code would like to have it because it makes certain things obvious and
> not a consequence of a whim of a compiler writer.
If you care which method the compiler writer uses, C isn't the language
for you. The whole point of using C is to save you the work of having to
specify such things, leaving it up to the compiler. If you don't trust
the compiler, don't use a language that gives the compiler a choice - C
is very deliberately NOT such a language.
...
> o It is necessary to use either 'static const int' or 'const int', although
> I'm not sure what the difference is between them (that with static const, it
> can only be initialised to a constant expression)?
It depends upon the scope. It's stupid that C gives two entirely
different meanings to 'static' (there's also a third one that's not
relevant to this question); but it's a historical artifact, and changing
the standard now to cleanly separate the two concepts would break too
much code.
At block scope, static determines whether the variable has automatic or
static storage duration. Now, you can't write code with defined behavior
that changes the value of the variable, and if it has automatic storage
duration, there's no way to write code with defined behavior that checks
what the value is between calls to the function. Therefore, a conforming
implementation could treat a "const int" precisely the same as a "static
const int", reducing unnecessary memory usage and unnecessary
re-initialization.
That's not quite true; a block scope "static const int" would have the
same exact address during every pass through function. That could also
be true if it had automatic storage duration, so is not itself a problem
- unless the function is directly or indirectly recursive, and compares
the addresses. It's not clear to me that optimizing "const int" by
treating it the same as "static const int" would be permitted for
recursive functions - which is an argument for explicitly using "static
const int".
At file scope, "static" determines whether the variable has internal or
external linkage. If it has internal linkage, and the program never
takes it's address, no actual storage need be allocated for it, the same
as at block scope. However, if it has external linkage, then there can
only be one definition for the variable across all of the translation
units that make up the program. It's value would have to be unknown in
every translation unit other than the one where it is defined. As a
result, it wouldn't be a compile time constant in those other modules,
which would pretty much destroy the whole point of defining such a
variable. Again, the preferred declaration is "static const int".
> o 'static const int' doesn't need an initialisation value! (Presumably this
> is then set to zero, but for a mechanism designed to define constant values,
> this is a bigger sin that omitting an explicit type.) ('const int' doesn't
> need one either, and the value then is undefined.)
You're apparently thinking of block scope. At file scope, "const int"
automatically has static storage duration, so it is initialized to 0 if
not explicitly initialized to anything else, just the same as for
"static const int".
> o 'const int' can be set to a runtime value! Presumably such a name cannot
> be used as a simple named constant; or can it? The possibilities are
> complicated.
The rule in C++, which people are saying should be adopted in C, applies
only to variables initialized with constant expressions. It would not
apply to variables initialized by runtime values.
> o 'const int' variables can, in certain circumstances, have their values
> changed, so will differ from what the compiler thinks they might be.
Not during their lifetimes, not with defined behavior.
> o '[static] const int]' exists now in C, yet cannot be used for dimensioning
> arrays or switch case-values. Maybe I missed something in the discussion,
> but why is that? And what will change in future as apparently you are not
> proposing any new syntax.
The proposal is to adopt C++ rules: a integer const variable initialized
with a integer constant expression is itself an integer constant
expression; as such, it would be usable in those contexts.
> o I've just tried using a 'const int' value to define an array, and this
> time it worked. Then I realised I was probably creating a VLA. I don't want
> to inadvertently construct VLAs!
In C as currently defined, it creates a VLA. With the proposed change,
it would automatically not be a VLA: the standard already says "If the
size is an integer constant expression and the element type has a known
constant size, the array type is not a variable length array type."
(6.7.6.2p4) so no additional changes would be needed to make that true.
> So, full of difficulties, so I don't understand your objection to my very
> simple proposal, which has few of those problems:
>
> o The name created is *not* a variable
I don't see this as any particular advantage (or disadvantage). In the
unlikely case that you need a const object initialized with the value of
a constant, so you can pass it's address to a function, you can
currently use &const_variable. With your rules, you'd have to use:
const int dummy = constant_value;
and then pass &dummy. It's an absolutely trivial inconvenience, because
there's seldom ever a need to do such things, but I don't see any
corresponding compensating conveniences.
> o The initialisation value is mandatory, and *must* be evaluable at
> compile-time
C++ has actually adopted this rule for const variables with static
storage duration, for precisely the same reason you've given for your
construct.
>> (Of course, there are some compilers that are so simple in construction
>> that they are basically translators, but that does not apply to "big"
>> compilers, and it is certainly not required by the C standards.)
>
> You can't propose an essential language feature and then say you need an
> elite compiler to implement it properly!
It doesn't require an elite compiler to implement this. This is standard
state-of-the art for C++ compilers, and has been for quite some time.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" partremmaps@gmail.com - 2014-04-05 13:07 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-05 14:14 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 22:18 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-06 16:35 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 08:55 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 23:30 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 10:12 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-06 18:22 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-05 14:30 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-05 22:39 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 22:27 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 08:52 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-06 23:20 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 02:17 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 19:00 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-07 04:44 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 10:15 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-04-07 11:39 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 08:58 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 19:34 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 09:41 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 21:45 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 11:03 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 12:54 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 13:48 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:27 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 23:00 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 11:31 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-04-07 07:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:02 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 10:19 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 12:43 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 13:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 14:43 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 16:44 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 16:52 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-07 12:53 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 18:12 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 18:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:22 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 18:44 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 09:39 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-09 10:52 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-09 11:32 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 08:58 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 19:54 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 00:41 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-08 23:05 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 18:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 19:39 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 22:41 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 09:16 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 07:27 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 15:32 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:32 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 11:03 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 07:27 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 14:02 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 08:34 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 16:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 12:58 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 11:36 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-09 18:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-09 14:11 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 13:55 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 02:35 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 23:05 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 09:45 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-10 09:08 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-10 02:57 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-10 11:50 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-10 11:37 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 14:52 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-10 18:53 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 19:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 15:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 20:12 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:18 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-11 10:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-11 14:36 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-05-25 16:44 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:05 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 13:34 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 16:01 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-14 21:24 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-14 21:36 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-15 05:26 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-15 07:18 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-18 09:01 -0700
Please ignore trolls Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2014-04-09 15:26 +0200
Re: Please ignore trolls David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 15:38 +0200
Re: Please ignore trolls James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 12:02 -0400
Re: Please ignore trolls Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 19:18 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-10 20:18 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 15:49 -0400
Re: Please ignore trolls gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-10 20:14 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-11 14:35 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-11 07:35 -0700
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-11 15:51 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-04-12 15:48 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-10 21:16 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-12 15:35 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Please ignore trolls gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-09 15:25 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-09 21:28 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-10 08:39 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 23:38 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-10 02:07 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-09 05:18 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-07 08:33 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 17:16 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-07 11:07 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 09:49 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-08 20:33 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 12:31 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 21:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 07:37 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 08:35 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-08 11:30 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:46 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 18:28 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-08 17:21 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 09:07 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 07:22 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 16:25 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 02:22 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-06 06:08 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-06 08:54 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" partremmaps@gmail.com - 2014-04-07 23:48 -0700
csiph-web