Different compiler or separate preprocessor. Nothing like this was ever in FPC itselfNope indeed. There once was a clear statement that parameterised macro's would not be introduced any time soon.
Different compiler or separate preprocessor. Nothing like this was ever in FPC itselfNope indeed. There once was a clear statement that parameterised macro's would not be introduced any time soon.
(I have still mixed opinions about that, but otherwise you have the C trap, so I see the point).
I fully agree. It just leads the discussion to the next "feature" of C macros, and a new load of newbies will swear upon their life that they couldn't program without it.Unless you want Object Pascal ++, after all C++ is one *huge* set of macro's on top of C... :'( 8-) Or about that...
Unless you want Object Pascal ++, after all C++ is one *huge* set of macro's on top of C... :'( 8-) Or about that...
I can't agree here considering I earn my money working with C++ code and thus work with much C++ code. C++ is vastly more type safe (and strict) than C and templates allow for much type safety and meta programming (though of course most of the latter is needed due to C++ not having an as rich RTTI as Object Pascal has ;) ).I fully agree. It just leads the discussion to the next "feature" of C macros, and a new load of newbies will swear upon their life that they couldn't program without it.Unless you want Object Pascal ++, after all C++ is one *huge* set of macro's on top of C... :'( 8-) Or about that...