Hi all,
I'm developing a small defensive programming toolkit for my own
projects. So, here are my questions.
1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to
__safecall foo();
2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class
safeclass MyClass
{
public:
void foo();
}
void MyClass::foo() {}
will modify the foo implementation - add some lines of code on the end
of the method
3) even more advanced stuff, is it possible to modify the preprocessor
(or add my own preprocessor)? I need to parse something like this.
__precheck minutes >= 0 && minutes < 60 #Checking minutes variable for
valid time information
void foo(int minutes){}
__postcheck minutes % 10 == 0 #Checking if minutes have been rounded to
10 minutes intervals
I need also the text behind # 9 4667
Let_Me_Be opined: Hi all, I'm developing a small defensive programming toolkit for my own projects. So, here are my questions.
1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to __safecall foo();
2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class safeclass MyClass { public: void foo(); }
void MyClass::foo() {}
Are you sure you don't want comp.lang.c++? will modify the foo implementation - add some lines of code on the end of the method
3) even more advanced stuff, is it possible to modify the preprocessor (or add my own preprocessor)? I need to parse something like this. __precheck minutes >= 0 && minutes < 60 #Checking minutes variable for valid time information void foo(int minutes){} __postcheck minutes % 10 == 0 #Checking if minutes have been rounded to 10 minutes intervals I need also the text behind #
--
A father doesn't destroy his children.
-- Lt. Carolyn Palamas, "Who Mourns for Adonais?",
stardate 3468.1.
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c>
> Are you sure you don't want comp.lang.c++?
Nope, this was just an example, my toolkit should work in both c/c++.
Let_Me_Be wrote: Hi all, I'm developing a small defensive programming toolkit for my own projects. So, here are my questions.
1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to __safecall foo();
2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class safeclass MyClass { public: void foo(); }
void MyClass::foo() {}
Wrong group, if you look carefully, you will spot the absence of "++" at
the end of this group's name.
--
Ian Collins.
Let_Me_Be opined: Are you sure you don't want comp.lang.c++? Nope, this was just an example, my toolkit should work in both c/c++.
Presumably then, you posted the same question to comp.lang.c++, with an
example in C?
In c.l.c you can only get the C perspective. Whether that's going to be
of any use in C++ is not something to be found (or discussed) here.
Also, do not snip attribution lines (the ones who tell us who said
what), and leave enough context so that your post can be grasped in
isolation. The above worked only because I remembered it was me, and
what I replied to. Read the link in my sig.
--
In Pocatello, Idaho, a law passed in 1912 provided that "The carrying
of concealed weapons is forbidden, unless same are exhibited to public
view."
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c>
Let_Me_Be wrote: Are you sure you don't want comp.lang.c++? Nope, this was just an example, my toolkit should work in both c/c++.
Speaking for myself, I found the examples did not cast
much light on your intentions. What are you trying to do?
The first question was
1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to __safecall foo();
.... and it's not at all clear how "like" the actual "something"
would be, nor what sort of "motion" you desire. The second was
2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class
.... and I'm unable to imagine how this could have any "image" in
C. All C functions (taking "function" as a translation of "method")
have the same status, as it were: they do not belong to any larger
groupings like "class" or "package," so I can see no way to decide
which functions require manipulation and which should be left alone.
This part of your toolkit needs more explanation -- or, as Vladimir
suggests, you need to take your question elsewhere.
The third example (see up-thread) looks like gibberish. You're
evidently trying to introduce some sort of assertion or error-check,
but you're doing so with a syntax that doesn't look anything at all
like C. Again, either your question needs elaboration or it needs
relocation.
One of the most valuable skills a programmer can hone is the
ability to ask good questions, questions that provide the necessary
information and state clearly what is wanted. You'll forgive me,
I hope, my opinion that you need practice in this skill.
--
Eric Sosman es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid
> The first question was > 1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) > to > __safecall foo(); ... and it's not at all clear how "like" the actual "something" would be, nor what sort of "motion" you desire. The second was
Currently i'm using SAFECALL macro, the syntax is SAFECALL(something),
well, it does work, but much nicer would be __safecall something. > 2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class
... and I'm unable to imagine how this could have any "image" in C. All C functions (taking "function" as a translation of "method") have the same status, as it were: they do not belong to any larger groupings like "class" or "package," so I can see no way to decide which functions require manipulation and which should be left alone. This part of your toolkit needs more explanation -- or, as Vladimir suggests, you need to take your question elsewhere.
Ok, i will try to talk about this in the c++ group.
The third example (see up-thread) looks like gibberish. You're evidently trying to introduce some sort of assertion or error-check, but you're doing so with a syntax that doesn't look anything at all like C. Again, either your question needs elaboration or it needs relocation.
Problem - visualy divide main code and assertions. I'm acctualy trying
to implement functionality similar to Eiffel.
The syntax doesn't look like C because it isn't C :) Well, that's why
this thread is called Advanced Macros && Preprocessors. The syntax
actualy should look something like this MACRO-HEADER BOOLEAN-EXP
COMMENT (the comment should appear in the error message), or even
better
_start of check block
exp comment
exp comment
_end of check block
Idealy the block should appear after the function header, before the
main code.
One of the most valuable skills a programmer can hone is the ability to ask good questions, questions that provide the necessary information and state clearly what is wanted. You'll forgive me, I hope, my opinion that you need practice in this skill.
-- Eric Sosman es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid
Let_Me_Be wrote On 04/28/06 09:21,: The first question was
> 1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) > to > __safecall foo(); ... and it's not at all clear how "like" the actual "something" would be, nor what sort of "motion" you desire. The second was
Currently i'm using SAFECALL macro, the syntax is SAFECALL(something), well, it does work, but much nicer would be __safecall something.
Whether you can do this depends on what SAFECALL expands
to. If SAFECALL(x) produces bunch_of_stuff x, then you can
simply define a __safecall macro producing bunch_of_stuff.
If SAFECALL(x) does something more complicated, it cannot be
replaced by an object-like __safecall macro whose expansion
does not itself involve x.
By the way, using two underscores at the start of the
macro name is begging for trouble. Such names "are always
reserved for any use" (7.1.3/1), which means "if you use
them in your program and something goes wrong, it's your
fault and no one else's."
The syntax doesn't look like C because it isn't C :) [...]
So why ask about it in a C forum? Wouldn't alt.woodworking
be equally appropriate?
-- Er*********@sun.com
"Let_Me_Be" <Ha************@gmail.com> writes: 1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to __safecall foo();
This macro will make that literal substitution, although I can't
see how it's useful:
#define SAFECALL(arg) __safecall arg
[...C++ question omitted...]
3) even more advanced stuff, is it possible to modify the preprocessor (or add my own preprocessor)? I need to parse something like this. [...]
You can always write your own preprocessor to translate whatever
you like into C. If you use a "make" or similarly powerful build
system, it's not any hard to build such a project than it is to
build an ordinary C project.
--
"C has its problems, but a language designed from scratch would have some too,
and we know C's problems."
--Bjarne Stroustrup
Let_Me_Be wrote: The first question was
> 1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) > to > __safecall foo();
... and it's not at all clear how "like" the actual "something" would be, nor what sort of "motion" you desire. The second was
Currently i'm using SAFECALL macro, the syntax is SAFECALL(something), well, it does work, but much nicer would be __safecall something.
which doesn't address the issue raised above. "It works" is not a
sufficient description.
One of the options you mentioned earlier is to write your own
preprocessor. If you do that, you can use any syntax you like, but if
you need full C and C++ parsing, the job will be much bigger. > 2) I need to auto-add code to every method of particular class
I guess you need to write your own. There are probably tools available
to help parse your target language.
--
Thad This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: josef angermeier |
last post by:
i wrote a display driver for a lcd segment display which doesnt recognize
ascii character so that each character of an output string needs to be
converted byte by byte by looking in a const...
|
by: Santa Claus |
last post by:
I have the following problem:
I would like for a piece of code to be compiled only if a certain macro
has been defined AND has some specific value. Let me illustrate:
#ifdef SYMBOL
f() ;...
|
by: sathya_me |
last post by:
friends,
Please go through the following code which I have downloaded from Bob
Stout (Snippets):
#include <stdio.h>
|
by: Michael Blackney |
last post by:
I've been looking into cascaded macros and I can't seem to find if
what I'm doing is portable. I want to do something like:
#define THREE_ONES 1,1,1
#define ONE_TWO_THREE 1,2,3
#define...
|
by: Let_Me_Be |
last post by:
Hi all,
I'm developing a small defensive programming toolkit for my own
projects. So, here are my questions.
1) Is it possible to move from something like this: SAFECALL(foo();) to
__safecall...
|
by: Vijay |
last post by:
Prep Courses for International Certifications, CSTE & CSQA & ISEB &
ISTQB &Business Analyst & SOA Certifications in HYDERABAD.
After receiving overwhelming response to our last 50+ batches, ...
|
by: Suzette |
last post by:
I have an excel file that automatically updates when opened, pulling information from an Access database into into various pivot tables.
I created a macro in Access to perform various necessary...
|
by: Taxman |
last post by:
Windows XP, MS Office Excel 2003
If the tasks, I’m trying accomplish have been addressed previously (separately or in combination). Please, provide the links or keyword search to find them. I’ve...
|
by: mdh |
last post by:
Hi All,
The section is titled Variable-length Argument lists.
May I ask a question about the use of "macros".
To quote K&R.
"The standard header <stdarg.hcontains a set of macro definitions...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| |