X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f Lines: 69 X-Admin: news AT aol DOT com From: sterten AT aol DOT com (Sterten) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Date: 05 Feb 2004 10:25:52 GMT References: Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com Subject: Re: array indices [i][j] Message-ID: <20040205052552.26490.00001486@mb-m07.aol.com> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: >Sterten wrote: > >> That's the way how they can get the source without macros. > >Not really. It's the way to get *a* source with all the macros >replaced. But if you've ever actually looked at this kind of >intermediate output, I hope you'll agree that it's completely useless >as a readable representation of the source code. For one thing, the >preprocessor will have replaced *all* macros, not just your syntax >obfuscators. It'll also have copied in all the #include'd header >files verbatim, and done some other things that you don't want to have >in source code supposed to be read by humans. Is there no way to get only my #include's replaced ? Maybe by specifying them with uppercase like #Include or such. Well, I could still delete those unwanted stuff with only little work. >> I'd say: when you have to behave like a Roman there,then don't go to Rome. > >Nonsense. And rather chauvinistic, too. It's rather "If you don't >like the way the Romans behave, maybe you shouldn't go to Rome." That's what I meant. >So, if you don't want to write code that looks like C, don't program >in C. Nobody's forcing this choice of language down your throat, >right? So if you don't like it, don't use it. I try to avoid C, when I can. Usually I use Basic, because it's easier to debug for me and easier to get things working in the first place. But C-programs run faster and are not limited to 64K , I can use inline ASM (though I don't like ATT-syntax) .. so I have to convert some (about 30% or such) of my Basic programs to C >If you want Python or Perl, I'm reasonably sure you'll manage to find I don't know these and too lazy to learn them. And then, when I did, maybe later I figure out that I don't like them. >them. Thank you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. > >> >That is, when >> >you work in a certain programming language, use the syntactic >> >conventions of that programming language, even if facilities like >> >macros allow you to redefine almost everything. > >> that reminds me to Don Knuth's programs. >[...] >> because he uses an own,unusual language similar to C but with some >> special "macros". > >I think you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. >That "C with some special macros" you're talking about is actually >Knuth's own special programming tool "Web", which is actually not C at >all, but Pascal, and intermixed with TeX for internal documentation. too bad. So I assume it cannot be transformed to C. That way his programs are for a rather limited audience, not a good thing IMO for someone who publishes books about it. >-- >Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) >Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain. Guenter Stertenbrink.