On 23 April 2014 09:03, David Brown wrote:
> Again, this is stepping /way/ outside the appropriate bounds of a
> built-in pre-processor.
>
> I don't disagree with the idea of improving upon autotools. But I don't
> think adding features to the pre-processor is the way to go.
I completely agree.
On 22/04/14 18:38, Solal wrote:
> I've got ideas for improve the preprocessor with specific features.
>
> The basic idea is to make the preprocessing language a complete
> programming language.
> That can be useful for includes things like Autotools and advanced
> Makefiles directly in the source
Solal,
Ian is right, m4 corresponds better to what you've got in mind
Your idea (strengthening the preprocessing phase) of C is already
(mostly) implemented : it is called Cawen. Please have a look at :
http://www.melvenn.com/en/cawen/why-cawen/
In short : C99 + m4 = Cawen
And your idea is
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Solal wrote:
>
> I've got ideas for improve the preprocessor with specific features.
>
> The basic idea is to make the preprocessing language a complete
> programming language.
We are very unlikely to add such features to GCC unless they first
become part of the C
I've got ideas for improve the preprocessor with specific features.
The basic idea is to make the preprocessing language a complete
programming language.
That can be useful for includes things like Autotools and advanced
Makefiles directly in the source code, and have just a tiny Makefile for
comp
