Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:26:23 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

On 24/04/2025 08:40, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:43:33 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wibbled:

On 2025-04-23, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 23/04/2025 16:31, David Brown wrote:

On 22/04/2025 22:03, bart wrote:

>

Too few levels of functions and/or macros (there is no semantic
difference between macros and functions in this matter)

>
There is a great deal of difference. Functions tend to be well-formed in
their inputs and outputs.
>
Macros take some abitrary blocks of syntax and return another arbitrary
block of syntax:
>
      #define INDEX(a, b, y) a y b
      INDEX(a, i, [) ];

>
While that's terrible, I've never seen anything like it in the wild.

 
He loves coming up with unrealistic code examples that no decent programmer
would ever write then points and says look how bad macros must be. Using that

>

approach you can easily come up with highly contorted code that no one can

read

as the Obfuscated C contest proves.
 

>
And you do like totally ignoring the context. This was an example of how
macros work compared with how functions work.

You think anyone in this group needed to be told? Macros arn't supposed to
work the same way as functions or there'd be no point having them!

Functions return a value of some type;

Not always. Heard of void?

macros yield a bunch of lexical
tokens.

Not always. Eg if used in #ifdef.