OpenEuphoria

Re: wrapping macros?

• Posted by Bernie <xotron at PCOM.NET> Oct 28, 2000
• 444 views

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:14:10 -0600, cense <cense at MAIL.RU> wrote:

>The macros i want to use are not as simple as MIN(a, b) they are actually
>complex for just a macro, i wonder why they did not use routines instead.
>Ah well, ancient socket code is odd, quite odd.

   cense:

   The are two basic purposes for using MACROS in programming.

   1. A macro is defined at the beginning of a program and given
      a MACRO name.
      Then when ever a programmer invokes that MACRO's name later
      in the program. The code is then inserted directly at that point
      in the programmer's program when EVER the MACRO name is used.
      This is different than calling a function because the a function's
      code is only inserted in the program in ONE place and called from
      other places in the program. Placing the same code in more than
      1 place in a programming in some languages increases speed by
      eliminating the overhead of calling but this also icreases the
      size of the program.

   2. The second kind of MACRO is used as a kind of TEMPLATE.
      The progammer invokes the MACRO's name using it different
      parameters when the compiler see the MACRO name it inserts
      the code at the location where the MACRO name is invoked
      but uses DIFFERENT code depending on what parameters were
      used when the MACRO name was invoked.

   You should now be able to answer the question; can I use a function
   call instead of a MACRO.
   The only thing that is complicated is determining what exactly
   the MACRO is used to accomplish.

  I hopes this clears this up for you.

  Bernie