Special Macro for types

[Josh]

In many cases a special typedeclaration could make code better understandable. For example:

Code: Select all

TypeMacro bool
w
EndTypeMacro

Test.bool

Could also be useful for better checkable C-Structures

Code: Select all

TypeMacro CLongLong
q
EndTypeMacro

Test.CLongLong

According to the diskussions 1-2 PB releases back, it would make sense, that the TypeMacro could change typedeclarations to nothing

Code: Select all

TypeMacro AnyTerm
EndTypeMacro

*Test.AnyTerm

[Little John]

In many cases a special typedeclaration could make code better understandable. For example:

Code: Select all

TypeMacro bool
w
EndTypeMacro

Test.bool

Could also be useful for better checkable C-Structures

Code: Select all

TypeMacro CLongLong
q
EndTypeMacro

Test.CLongLong

This can already be done with normal macros, no special "TypeMacro" needed.

Code: Select all

Macro bool
   i
EndMacro

Macro CLongLong
   q
EndMacro


a.bool
b.CLongLong

[Josh]

Could also be useful for better checkable C-Structures

Yes, thats clear. But when I fill my project with a lot of standard macros, i will get much trouble and this case of problems are hard to find. I always try to use unique identifier, but its not reasonable in each case.

With special macros i could use short and clear types without problems.

BTW: Changing to nothing is not possible with standard macros

[Little John]

Could also be useful for better checkable C-Structures

No, I didn't write that.

I wrote:

This can already be done with normal macros, no special "TypeMacro" needed.

Yes, thats clear. But when I fill my project with a lot of standard macros, i will get much trouble and this case of problems are hard to find. I always try to use unique identifier, but its not reasonable in each case.

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is with just using normal macros that are already available in PB.
Giving unique names to identifiers is possible now, without such a "TypeMacro".

BTW: Changing to nothing is not possible with standard macros

That's true. And the only purpose of that seems to be re-introducing obsolete syntax that has been abandoned.

[Josh]

Could also be useful for better checkable C-Structures

No, I didn't write that.

I wrote:

This can already be done with normal macros, no special "TypeMacro" needed.

Ups, sorry. I shorted the quotation wrong.

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is with just using normal macros that are already available in PB. Giving unique names to identifiers is possible now, without such a "TypeMacro".

I see in your first post, that you don't understand. I want to give short and clear additional informations about the needed parameters shown in the statusbar quickhelp.


For me its better readable:

Code: Select all

Procedure Test (Param1.ui, Param2.bool, Param3.color)

instead of:

Code: Select all

Procedure Test (Param1.AUniqueType_ui, Param2.AUniqueType_bool, Param3.AUniqueType_color)

[Little John]

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is with just using normal macros that are already available in PB. Giving unique names to identifiers is possible now, without such a "TypeMacro".

I see in your first post, that you don't understand.

I want to give short and clear additional informations about the needed parameters shown in the statusbar quickhelp.

Yes, this works fine here (with PB 5.31) with normal macros, like the examples that I wrote in my first post.