flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (05/11/86)
Well I sure hope no one sticks in such a thing without telling me!
Any such #include or #define things should not only be optional, they
should have to be explicit. So perhaps instead of merely beginning every
program with #include <stdio.h>, you can also have #include <builtins.h>.
*I* won't #include it, though...
Alan J Rosenthal
{linus|decvax}!utzoo!utcs!flaps, {ihnp4|allegra}!cbosgd!utcs!flapskwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (05/14/86)
In article <1232@utcs.uucp> utcs!flaps (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >Well I sure hope no one sticks in such a thing without telling me! >Any such #include or #define things should not only be optional, they >should have to be explicit. So perhaps instead of merely beginning every >program with #include <stdio.h>, you can also have #include <builtins.h>. > >*I* won't #include it, though... They should be semantically identical, so what do you care whether it's optimized by default? I wonder if perhaps <stdio.h> (and <builtins.h>) should be included by default, with an explicit "#exclude" to disable. (Cf. "#undef".) Probably tricky to implement -- don't do the automatic "#include" until checking for "#exclude", which must be at the top of the file (after whitespace)? I had much the same attitude when I learned of the (then) new features that allowed structure copy/call-by-value/return-by-value. I wasn't using them (of course, since they were new), and I wanted to see an error if I used one by mistake (forgotten "&"). I was hoping for a compatibility option of some type, like EO in TECO-10. (A nice feature that allowed TECO to simulate an older version of itself, so as not to obsolete all old macros.) Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (05/17/86)
In article <816@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >I wonder if perhaps <stdio.h> (and <builtins.h>) should be included by >default, with an explicit "#exclude" to disable. (Cf. "#undef".) Probably >tricky to implement -- don't do the automatic "#include" until checking for >"#exclude", which must be at the top of the file (after whitespace)? Why bother? This would be very complicated and lead to many mistakes due to an unclear definition of whitespace or whatever. I have a file called "beginc", it's a shellscript, and it creates a file which begins something like this: #include <stdio.h> #include "/u/flaps/ajr.h" #include <strings.h> #define TRUE 1 #define FALSE 0 main(argc,argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { and then puts you in $EDITOR on the file. This approach is much better than any #exclude op. It's more easily disabled or modified because you don't have the reverse situation of deleting things by adding in lines. -- Alan J Rosenthal {linus|decvax}!utzoo!utcs!flaps, {ihnp4|allegra}!cbosgd!utcs!flaps
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (05/23/86)
In article <1243@utcs.uucp> utcs!flaps (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >In article <816@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >>I wonder if perhaps <stdio.h> (and <builtins.h>) should be included by >>default, with an explicit "#exclude" to disable. (Cf. "#undef".) Probably >>tricky to implement -- don't do the automatic "#include" until checking for >>"#exclude", which must be at the top of the file (after whitespace)? > >Why bother? This would be very complicated and lead to many mistakes due >to an unclear definition of whitespace or whatever. It doesn't seem all that complicated to me, and probably seems simpler to the neophyte who doesn't understand why he gets "stderr undefined" when his program was working fine earlier. The mistakes could be easily caught by cpp: "#exclude must be at top of file". I meant for "whitespace" to include comments, otherwise I think it's quite clear (when restricted to the set of characters that can legally appear in a C program). >I have a file called "beginc", it's a shellscript, and it creates a file [which contains several #include's and #define's and the start of main()] >and then puts you in $EDITOR on the file. This approach is much better >than any #exclude op. It's more easily disabled or modified because you >don't have the reverse situation of deleting things by adding in lines. Perhaps. We already have the "delete by adding" situation with #undef, though the analogy isn't perfect (you can't completely cancel an #include, which is why #exclude would have to be first). On a related note, I've always despised the automatic cpp builtins (such as "#define unix 1" on UNIX(R) systems), because it effectively creates a new reserved word for each possible operating system, machine, etc. that your program might be compiled on. Older versions got around this by making the builtin definition be "#define unix unix", with a special kludge to prevent infinite recursion. I think the "who am i" testing should not use the same namespace as the macros. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint