Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:21:17 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limits.h and styles; ANSIfication Message-ID: <20000427112117.A35003@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200004271758.KAA66218@bubba.whistle.com>; from archie@whistle.com on Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:58:01AM -0700 References: <20000424125408.A13576@dragon.nuxi.com> <200004271758.KAA66218@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:58:01AM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: > > Why are you removing the ()'s from the macros? They are there to protect > > the expansion and should stay. > > You don't need paretheses when C cannot possibly parse it any > other way.. eg "0xffff" is always the same as "(0xffff)" in C. Yes. BUT it is a good habit to be in to protect macro expansion. I've seen too many times where the macho programmer "knew" where ()'s were needed and where they weren't. > they're also unnecessary, inductively assuming the #definition of And we all know what "assume" stands for. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000427112117.A35003>