On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:44:49AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> bool dummy = conv.To->dummy() && conv.to != "program";
> >>- if (!dummy)
> >>+ if (!dummy) {
> >> LYXERR(Debug::FILES) << "Converting from "
> >> << conv.from << " to " << conv.to << endl;
> >>+ }
> >> infile = outfile;
> >
> >So the code is like
> >
> > if (!dummy)
> > if (!lyxerr.debugging(Debug::FILES)) ; else lyxerr << "Converting
> > from "
> > << conv.from << " to " << conv.to << endl;
> >
> >Isn't there some documented trick that avoids this warning? Having to
> >add braces around the second if is not nice.
>
> What about enclosing the macro with {}?
No good idea. The current macro requires an "open end" that can have
"<<" attached.
Even if it weren't: Just try to compile:
if (...)
{...};
else
...
If LYXERR usage would be something like
LYXERR(Debug::FILES, "Converting from "
<< conv.from << " to " << conv.to << endl);
we could have
#define LYXERR(type, what) \
do { if (!lyx::lyxerr.debugging(type)) ; else lyx::lyxerr << what; } \
while (0)
(and we could even include the endl in the macro, we use it anyway in
all cases)
But last time I proposed to use the two-argument version the proposal
was shot down because people consider the << version more stylish.
Andre'
