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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #62946

Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments
Date 2015-06-02 12:24 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87siaa2w18.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <60286786-f055-4e03-b904-65b7de764273@googlegroups.com> <87a8wj3r1e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mkjt2g$5va$1@dont-email.me> <874mmq4e77.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mkk12q$iun$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 02/06/2015 11:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> Macro arguments would be avoided in the same way they would be in any
>>> other language without macro arguments. He's already given
>>> alternatives for MAX.
>>
>> MAX does not use ## so it can't possibly help explain DK's position
>> here.  DK (a) thinks # and ## are useful (though maybe only ##); (b)
>> does not want to change C; and (c) says that macros arguments are not
>> needed.  This is the puzzle.
>>
>> By the way, do you agree with DK about any of these points?
>
> (a) I don't really fully understand what ## does. After writing a few
> tens of thousands of lines of C, I've never used it. (When I have
> tried it, it didn't do what I expected: if tokens are macro names, it
> concatenates them before expanding them).
>
> So to me ## is not useful and I wouldn't miss it.
>
> (b) He wants to use a restricted subset of C. That can work when C is
> used as a code generator target, for example (but readability isn't a
> big issue there). But specifying coding guidelines and avoiding
> certain features can be useful, that's nothing new.
>
> (c) Avoiding macros with arguments completely: all I can say is that
> in a million lines of code outside C, I've never used macros with
> arguments, and only rarely use them in C. So in this case I might
> agree.

OK.  There's nothing contentious there.  You won't miss ## (I can't make
you miss it!), and having some coding guidelines certainly is useful,
and though you don't write much C, macros with arguments have some use
(enough that you've used them).

>> Do you
>> actually agree that his frankly daft alternative to MAX makes the code
>> better?
>
> I didn't grasp the MAX one.

Right.  So for the moment it would be safe to say that you don't think
the code was improved?  To say so, you'd have to have an comprehensible
example first, yes?

> But this alternative seemed simple enough:
>
>     p = scan_meta->frame_count_array[MD_SD_FRAMES_IN_SCAN] * 2)
>     q = PH_REALISTIC_NUM_SD_PACKETS
>     max_SD_packets = p < q ? q : p
>
> Splitting up the original code has made it more readable.

Right, but avoiding the MAX macro altogether was not the contentious
claim.  The contentious claim is to keep it but without arguments and
you found *that* example incomprehensible.

Let's not lose track of the preposterous nature of this argument.  DK
says "just stop writing macros with arguments" and the example he
originally gives is to define

 #define fake array[foo]

"far off in some header" and then to write

  #define foo y
  x = fake     /* fake depends on foo */

where you need it, rather than simply using

  #define fake(foo) array[foo]

Now let's see how he summarises this suggestion.  He describes it as

| only a little longer than
|     x = fake(y)
| and just as opaque.
|
| This "improvement" - if it actually works - is easy to implement -
| just stop writing macros with arguments.

So it's longer and just as opaque (I think it's more opaque but that's
not the issue right now) and the word "improvement" is in quotes -- even
*he* does not think it's an improvement!  And from this modest post he's
got days of entertainment, admittedly helped by topping it up with a few
more crank claims.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

Thread

Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 10:36 -0700
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 19:04 +0100
    Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 07:30 -0700
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-30 15:51 +0100
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-29 19:26 +0100
    Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 07:38 -0700
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-30 21:44 +0100
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-30 23:58 +0100
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 00:27 +0100
            Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 10:21 +0100
              Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 11:00 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 09:45 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 18:20 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-31 13:04 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-05-31 16:11 -0400
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 21:48 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-31 14:22 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 11:33 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 20:37 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-31 14:18 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 22:44 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 23:16 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 11:58 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-02 01:14 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-02 10:31 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-02 11:06 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-02 11:39 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 04:02 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-02 12:24 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-02 15:41 +0200
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-02 15:00 +0100
                Re: Trolls/Cranks/Kooks Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-02 16:41 +0200
                Re: Trolls/Cranks/Kooks Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-02 15:56 +0100
                Re: Trolls/Cranks/Kooks Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-02 17:09 +0200
                Re: Trolls/Cranks/Kooks Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-02 16:17 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-02 15:58 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-02 19:32 +0100
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 11:00 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-02 20:13 +0100
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-30 15:17 -0700
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 09:12 -0700
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-31 13:29 -0700
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-31 17:28 +0200
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-29 13:35 -0500
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-05-29 13:19 -0700
    Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-05-29 13:25 -0700
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-05-29 14:23 -0600
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 14:16 -0700
    Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 07:46 -0700
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-05-30 18:28 -0400
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 09:27 -0700
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 17:59 +0100
            Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 11:24 -0700
              Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-01 12:15 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 12:21 -0700
                Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-01 12:53 -0700
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-31 13:36 -0700
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-31 23:26 +0200
            Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 23:09 +0100
            Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 15:51 -0700
              Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 12:08 -0700
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-01 12:38 -0400
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-01 19:20 +0100
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 12:18 -0700
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-30 15:43 -0700
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 09:32 -0700
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-29 22:07 -0500
  Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2015-05-30 09:22 -0700
    Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-30 14:22 -0500
      Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-30 21:29 +0100
        Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-30 22:15 -0500
          Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-08 20:16 -0500
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-31 17:32 +0200
  Re: Making C more beautiful by not using macros with arguments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-01 22:51 +0100

csiph-web