| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dparker |
Posted - Jan 19 2006 : 4:19:24 PM
Ok, so who's so lazy they use macros to generate code?
That aside, I saw that in some code having the following #define, what showed up in the definition box when CASE_DRIVER(XX) was expanded had the ":" and "." replaced with "::".
#define CASE_DRIVER(ID) case driver##ID: sendStatus = driver_##ID.Update (packet.msg, &sendPacket); break;
Nothing fatal or earth shaking. Just figured it's not supposed to be that way. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dparker |
Posted - Feb 01 2006 : 5:11:02 PM
Just for testing purposes -
this line :
static const double VoltsPerBit = 10.0 / (double)0x0fff;
is shown in the definition box as :
static const double VoltsPerBit = 10::0 (double)0x0fff;
The tooltip is even stranger.
|
| feline |
Posted - Jan 30 2006 : 3:02:34 PM
good catch. case 897 has in fact been replaced by the duplicate case 932 |
| dparker |
Posted - Jan 30 2006 : 2:12:10 PM
This "problem" didn't occur in build 1418. Might be the same as case 923. |
| feline |
Posted - Jan 22 2006 : 2:15:52 PM
that makes sense  |
| dparker |
Posted - Jan 19 2006 : 10:39:05 PM
The ## is the Token-Pasting Operator (##)
Sometimes old code has old practices.
|
| feline |
Posted - Jan 19 2006 : 4:39:55 PM
i am seeing the same thing on some of the dots.
case=897
out of interest should those #'s be there? or are they just place holders? i try not to use macro's to much, but the hashes look like they wont compile, and i don't recall reading anything about them being control characters in a macro. |
