seh_try_macros2-00

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Gregory M. Turner" <gmturner007 at ameritech.net> writes:

> I'm not sure I'm sold on this... I mean, I realize maybe I should be the one 
> selling you if I want to get a patch in, but could you elaborate on the "why" 
> of this a little bit?

Because it's the right place for it, and because other solutions are
simply not going to work.

> Why /not/ a pre-pre-processor?  It would allow us to implement this properly 
> and portably... I'm sure the performance impact at compile time could be 
> managed, perhaps by only running it against the code that needs it... such 
> files could be marked or discovered at build-time in any number of ways.

You can't make it portable anyway, you will still need nested
functions and other gcc-isms. Unless you want to reimplement a full C
compiler in your preprocessor...

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com