[9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[Andrew Pochinsky]

A historical question: What were reasons for #include to stand alone
on a line? It seems that allowing #include "filename" anywhere does
not change much the implementation, while imposing less restrictions
on the programmer.

--andrew

Re: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "Andrew Pochinsky" <avp@honti.mit.edu>
>
> A historical question: What were reasons for #include to stand alone
> on a line? It seems that allowing #include "filename" anywhere does
> not change much the implementation, while imposing less restrictions
> on the programmer.

let me take a wild, stab in the dark at that one.  i guess is was that
the language was designed without obsfucation as a design goal.

--
Boyd Roberts                                          boyd@planete.net

  [trouble] seems to know pretty much where I am, most of the time.

    -- Riggs

Re[2]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[matt]

Hello Boyd,

Wednesday, April 25, 2001, 2:34:15 AM, you wrote:

BR> From: "Andrew Pochinsky" <avp@honti.mit.edu>
>>
>> A historical question: What were reasons for #include to stand alone
>> on a line? It seems that allowing #include "filename" anywhere does
>> not change much the implementation, while imposing less restrictions
>> on the programmer.

BR> let me take a wild, stab in the dark at that one.  i guess is was that
BR> the language was designed without obsfucation as a design goal.

now you mention it, it's exectly what I've got with this legacy php
I'm working on. includes scattered everywhere, some conditional,
includes in includes. "Luckily" this php has a flat namespace so
you'll be reading a page and constantly saying to yourself "where did
that variable come from?"

It's heinous



--
Best regards,
 matt                            mailto:matt@proweb.co.uk

Re: Re[2]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "matt" <matt@proweb.co.uk>
>
> It's heinous

sad, but oh so very true.

cfront was kinda a nice toy 'round '85.

C++ is right up there with collosal disasters.

Re[4]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[matt]

Hello Boyd,

BR> C++ is right up there with collosal disasters.
I wonder what C++0x will bring




--
Best regards,
 matt                            mailto:matt@proweb.co.uk

Re: Re[4]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "matt" <matt@proweb.co.uk>
>
> BR> C++ is right up there with collosal disasters.
> I wonder what C++0x will bring

core dumps i'd say.  out by 0x0 errors.

Re: Re[4]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[nospam]

If not C++, then what? SmallTalk, Dylan, C#, Eiffel, others?

do we lose more than we gain?
if we cannot build it (simply) in C, is it worth building at all?

Not wanting to divert 9fans off topic, but what do Plan9 gurus
feel(choose) collectively about choice of language for implementation
of superstructures layered on Plan9?

Re: Re[4]: [9fans] Design choice is C preprocessor

[Boyd Roberts]

> If not C++, then what? SmallTalk, Dylan, C#, Eiffel, others?

limbo