Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 08:02:52 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() implementation
In-Reply-To: <3DC3E2E5.8AA59996@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103080029.22669C@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, CBFalconer wrote:

> A very minor thought - no parameter gets re-evaluated, so wouldn't
> it be simpler to just define a macro?

We need a function anyway, even if we define a macro, since the Standard 
mandates that.

As for introducing a macro, I won't mind, although in this case, I don't 
think the macro is required, since I don't expect `atoll' to be used 
heavily enough to justify it.