Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITSThis is a discussion on Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS within the pl1 forums in Programming Languages category; "Dan Nagle" <dannagle @ verizon.net> wrote in message news:2008032021135911272-dannagle @ verizonnet... > On 2008-03-20 21:02:21 -0400, Simulate <li.simula @ gmail.com> said: > > > I have no much knowledge on BITS. I think Intelligent macros is very > > important feature. However, why the 2008 standard remove the > > "Intelligent macros" item? > > The short answer is that macro preprocessing > was seen as a backward technology. That is, > all macro preprocessing was seen as backward. > See, for instance, PL/1. The macro facility of PL/I has many uses: 1. generating constants at compile time; 2. insertion ... | ||||||||
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
#1
03-26-2008, 07:45 AM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS "Dan Nagle" <dannagle@verizon.net> wrote in message news:2008032021135911272-dannagle@verizonnet... > On 2008-03-20 21:02:21 -0400, Simulate <li.simula@gmail.com> said: > > > I have no much knowledge on BITS. I think Intelligent macros is very > > important feature. However, why the 2008 standard remove the > > "Intelligent macros" item? > > The short answer is that macro preprocessing > was seen as a backward technology. That is, > all macro preprocessing was seen as backward. > See, for instance, PL/1. The macro facility of PL/I has many uses: 1. generating constants at compile time; 2. insertion of debugging code; 3. replacement of names; 4. inline of code; 5. language translation; to mention a few.  |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
