Re: Circlemud design issues

From: Ben Shadwick (bshadwic@CLARK.EDU)
Date: 04/24/98


On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, James Turner wrote:
> > >As for added flexibility -- what added flexibility is gained from:
> > >
> > >#define GET_AC(ch)        ((ch)->points.armor)
> > >
> > >None.
> >
> > The fact you don't have to remember exactly where in the structure that
> > variable is.  It will also leave all your code unchanged if you restructure
> > the char_data structure.  Typing it out has disadvantages.
>
> No advantages over
>
> int
> getAC(CHAR_DATA *ch)
> {
>   return ch->points.armor;
> }

IMO, that is just plain silly. Things like this are what macros were
designed for. There is no reason to involve a bunch of function overhead
when all you want is a shortcut for typing something longer or harder to
remember. If you _are_ planning to do something more complicated or are
doing something which you want to make expandable (as you later
suggested), then I agree that a function may be called for.


     +------------------------------------------------------------+
     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
     +------------------------------------------------------------+



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST