Let's write a setjmp

Re:Let's write a setjmp by badsectoracula on Sunday February 12, 2023 @12:25PM (#34764700)

That has been my argument for "preprocessor abuse" - there isn't such thing as preprocessor "abuse"[0], it is part of the language and provides some form of extensibility in a language with an already limited set of features.

If anything the preprocessor needs more features (let me include files from macros and do loops dammit :-P).

[0] ok, i can think of some uses that might count, like "#define BEGIN {", etc that serve no practical purpose, but i don't think anyone called these "preprocessor abuse".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Let's write a setjmp by kevin_thibedeau on Sunday February 12, 2023 @01:56PM (#34765656)

You can have all that with m4. It's a perfectly suitable C preprocessor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Let's write a setjmp by badsectoracula on Friday February 24, 2023 @01:43AM (#34921622)

m4 is a bit weird but if you can use that you can use any preprocessor - including a custom one.

The issue is that chances are said preprocessor wont work with editors and IDEs that can parse C to provide tools like syntax completion, jumping to definitions, etc - if anything you'd be lucky if you get working line numbers t use a debugger with.

[ Parent | on HN ]