Ho hum,

Not all compilers are so modern - the Lattice V compiler we are still
stuck with for the Atari doesn't offer the _inline keword for functions,
only as a non-portable #pragma, intended really to support imbedded
assembler statements. One of the sacrifices someone maintaining
~cross-platform~ sources may have to make is the assumption that all
compilers support one or other 'modern' enhancements. 

As for macros, well IMHO they are fine if you know what you are doing,
and dangerous if you abuse them. There are things you can do with macros
which are not covered by consts, enums or inlines. Many of those same
'modern' compilers use macros extensively, tucked away inside the header
files that most people never look at. 


One final thing; I have to pay for my online time by the minute. Just
how many sites am I supposed to trawl, for how long, to get an
up-to-date version of Csound?


Richard Dobson

Nicola Bernardini wrote:
> 

> > Personally i do not see what is wrong with macros as they can be very
> > helpful in abstraction.
> 
> Yes, they are compared to raw cut-and-paste programming, but they lack
> type-checking and debugging facilities. Modern C compilers have nice
> features like consts, enums and inlines which replace macros in a nice
> way. OTOH, we're all free to hurt ourselves with whatever we please.
> 
>
-- 
Test your DAW with my Soundcard Attrition Page!
http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/rwd