Standard way of printing RECT in trace statements?

[Dan Kegel]

Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On December 26, 2002 12:14 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 
>>Example use:
>>     TRACE("Combo client " _RECT_FMT ", setting Edit to " _RECT_FMT "\n",
>>           _RECT_ARG(rect), x, y, x + w, y + h);
> 
> 
> Oh no! It's not too pretty, isn't it? :)

No, it's pretty ugly :-)

>>Although this doesn't hide things as well as the inline function,
>>it might have some advantage in size and runtime, since it does
>>more of its work at compile time.
> 
> 
> I'll bet you a dollar in small change you can not measure a 1% speed 
> difference. This code executes in trace mode only, where you don't
> care about the speed anyhow. Also, the since difference must be minute
> anyhow since the macro approach actually enlarges the strings where
> it's used. 

I thought everyone always left NO_TRACE_MSGS undefined,
so the rect2a function you favor gets called unconditionally,
and its output filtered out.  The macro doesn't enlarge the
strings over current practice; it merely codifies existing usage.
There would be no net change in string size or code size
with the macro approach.

Alternately, we could skip the macros, and just standardize
the format strings.  Would that be more acceptable?

- Dan

-- 
Dan Kegel
Linux User #78045
http://www.kegel.com