* harbour/include/hbcomp.h
* harbour/include/hbpp.h
* harbour/source/compiler/cmdcheck.c
* harbour/source/compiler/hbusage.c
* harbour/source/compiler/ppcomp.c
* harbour/source/pp/ppcore.c
* harbour/source/pp/ppgen.c
* harbour/source/pp/pplib.c
* restored support for old hb_inLine() syntax
+ added support for hb_inLine() to new PP. It can be enabled by
-kI compiler switch. It's disabled by default.
The new hb_inLine{} syntax is:
[ <exp> ] hb_inLine [ ( [<params,...>] ) ] { [ <c_code> ] } [ <exp> ]
<c_code> can contain new line characters.
Nested hb_inLine{} in <params,...> is not supported. If you think
it's important I can add it in few lines.
This version does not break any valid Clipper syntax, hb_inLine is
not reserved word and hb_inLine can be repeated many times in the
same line. F.e. this code can be properly preprocessed and compied if
you disable in compiler old hb_inLine() syntax and enable the new one
by -kcI Harbour compiler switch:
proc main()
local hb_inLine := " (var) "
? hb_inLine{ hb_retc("inLine"); } + hb_inLine(" parameter ") {
hb_retc( hb_parc( 1 ) );
} + "!" + hb_inLine + hb_inLine() { hb_retc( ":-)" ); } + ;
hb_inLine() + "{}"
return
function hb_inLine()
return " func() "
So from user point of view this version have real "inline" syntax.
To be clear: I'm not a fun of any C inline extensions. They works
only when we use .c code as compiler backend so the code which uses
them cannot be used in .hrb files and any other format we will add
in the future which do not support later C code compilation. F.e it
will not work in compiler integrated with HVM or with .NET
Anyhow if someone finds it useful then I think that it should be
properly implemented. This is the reason I added the new version.
The old one I left only for backward compatibility. It breaks any
code which uses hb_inLine keyword can be used only once in a line
and it does not have "inline" so IMHO it should not be enabled by
default.
I would like to hear your opinion about default compiler switches:
1. should we disable both: hb_inLine() and hb_inLine {}
2. should we disable hb_inLine() and enable hb_inLine {}
3. should we disable hb_inLine {} and enable hb_inLine()
4. should we enable both: hb_inLine() and hb_inLine {}
+ harbour/tests/hbinline.prg
+ added test code for new hb_inLine{} syntax
* harbour/tests/inline_c.prg
! replaced direct access to HB_ITEM body by API function calls
c2b4a94705