View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000605 | LDMud 3.5 | LPC Compiler/Preprocessor | public | 2009-02-06 11:21 | 2010-11-20 19:00 |
| Reporter | sinnvoll | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0000605: Ideas for the preprocessor (start-end-tag-defines, foreach-loop) | ||||
| Description | I often use a master-object to store data, with many specialized set/query-functions, all with the same structure. You could simplify that. Some Ideas for that: At first I need the ##-glue-operator for defines, but this is part of an other idea in the database. I want to show this idea in short form, to build onto it. I hope it motivates to implement the ##-glue-operator. The following code does not do, what you might think: #define SET_QUERY(typ,name) \ type a; \ void set_name(type a) { name=a; } \ type query_name() { return name; } The valid standard-c-syntax is: #define SET_QUERY(typ,name) \ type a; \ void set_##name(type a) { name=a; } \ type query_##name() { return name; } without glue-operator you could simplified the underlying structure, but not so effective: #define SET_QUERY(typ,name,setname,queryname) \ type a; \ void setname(type a) { name=a; } \ type queryname() { return name; } The following new ideas I propose for the preprocessor: For better readibility, to do multiline defines in an easy fashion: #define_start SET_QUERY(typ,name) type a; void set_##name(type a) { name=a; } type query_##name() { return name; } #define_end compared to now: #define SET_QUERY(typ,name) \ type a; \ void set_##name(type a) { name=a; } \ type query_##name() { return name; } now you have to look out for missing \ oder blanks following the \ on the other side to process a list of uniform data a loop-construct seems useful #foreach (a,b) ((string,name),(string,id),(int,plural)) SET_QUERY(a,b) or: #foreach (a,b) "%s %s\n" "filename" SET_QUERY(a,b) with a file 'filename': string name string gender int plural You could store the shared structure of files with the same or related interface i.e. the interfaces can differ in securing of the set-function ( private function, test of valid_caller) or one object with only set-functions and the other only query_functions a currently usable alternative is: items.inc: ITEM(string,name) ITEM(string,gender) ITEM(int,plural) It is possible to utilize this include-file in the form: #define ITEM(a,b) SET(a,b) #include "items.inc" #undef ITEM(a,b) #define ITEM(a,b) QUERY(a,b) #include "items.inc" | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| related to | 0000174 | new | LDMud | Preprocessor is not ISO-C compatible. |
|
|
Ok, as a first comment: I don't like precompiler magic like this very much and would definitely not accept it in domains I am responsible for. ;-) I tend to keep as many defines out of the code as possible with exceptions of constants. So personally I am not very interested in such features. |
|
|
The ##feature looks sweet, but I'm not sure if we need so much lex sugar. Looking at the actual use for this being '#foreach (a,b) "%s %s\n" "filename" SET_QUERY(a,b)' why don't you just generate a file to be #included, which has all the necessary LPC code generated by a previous LPC program? |
|
|
Programmatically generated LPC code is not the way I would like to go or encourage others to go. But I'm in favor of the ## operator. |
|
|
But I think this should go to 3.5. |
|
|
Like zesstra, I am not a friend of too many precompiler directives in code I have to read (or even maintain). This being a personal taste, there is also one "non-personal" argument against those extensions: LPC is a programming language that aims at a clientele that is not too familiar with programming (many start with LPC as their first "real" programming language). For those I think the extensive use of the precompiler will add one more burden when learning how to implement their ideas in LPC-code. |
|
|
Sorcerers point is even more valid for new wizards who try to assume responsibility for a region/domain. So even if they don't use that stuff, they have to know it because somebody else might have used them. I admit, I have a warped perception here because of too many wizards trying to obfuscate their code with precompiler stuff. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-02-06 11:21 | sinnvoll | New Issue | |
| 2009-02-08 09:05 | zesstra | Note Added: 0000947 | |
| 2009-05-22 01:57 | lynx | Note Added: 0001131 | |
| 2009-05-25 15:18 | Gnomi | Note Added: 0001156 | |
| 2009-05-26 01:50 | Gnomi | Note Added: 0001157 | |
| 2009-05-26 01:51 | Gnomi | Project | LDMud => LDMud 3.5 |
| 2009-05-26 02:52 | Sorcerer | Note Added: 0001158 | |
| 2009-10-06 02:44 | zesstra | Relationship added | related to 0000174 |
| 2010-11-20 19:00 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001928 |
