On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: > I wanted to suggest that, as current code makes LOTS OF > otherwise valid code prone to such errors and unexpected > behaviour. > Please do.
Fine, I'll commit it in a while. > As a next step we will have to convert all our codebase to > use the new APIs to avoid such problems. > Because of this, probably some very simple sounding > API names would be the best here, or, keeping current > familiar names and solve compatibility from PP. I'd be > very happy if it could be done that way, as I expect majority > of current hb_par*() usages don't use the extra optional > parameter. I suggest to remove support for variable number of parameters from current hb_par*() and hb_stor*() functions and add new set of functions hb_parv*() and hb_storv*() which will accepts variable number of parameters. It should reduce number of modifications in existing code (additional parameters are used rather seldom). Unfortunately I do not know any way to use C PP to automatically update existing code. AFAIK it's imposible to create such macro even using C99 ... macro argument and __VA_ARGS__. Maybe some C compilers have presporcessor with some local extensions which can be used for it but it's not a choice for us. GNU extension in GCC PP are IMHO not enough to implement it. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
