julliard at winehq.org
Mon May 19 12:02:25 CDT 2003
"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...
julliard at winehq.com
More information about the wine-devel