Can A Macro Do This?

**santosh** · Nov 28 '07, 03:15 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

gamename wrote:

Hi
>
Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
assert(foo==X);
assert(foo==Y);
assert(foo==Z);
>
Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
MYASRT(foo, (X||Y||Z));
... or maybe...
MYASRT(foo,OR,X ,Y,Z));

What's wrong with:

assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);

**jacob navia** · Nov 28 '07, 03:15 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

santosh wrote:

gamename wrote:
>

>Hi
>>
>Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
>assert(foo==X) ;
>assert(foo==Y) ;
>assert(foo==Z) ;
>>
>Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
>MYASRT(foo, (X||Y||Z));
> ... or maybe...
>MYASRT(foo,OR, X,Y,Z));

>
What's wrong with:
>
assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);
>
>

That is wrong!
Should be:

assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

**santosh** · Nov 28 '07, 03:15 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>gamename wrote:
>>

>>Hi
>>>
>>Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
>>assert(foo==X );
>>assert(foo==Y );
>>assert(foo==Z );
>>>
>>Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
>>MYASRT(foo, (X||Y||Z));
>> ... or maybe...
>>MYASRT(foo,OR ,X,Y,Z));

>>
>What's wrong with:
>>
> assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);
>>
>>

>
That is wrong!
Should be:
>
>
assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

Oops yes. You are right.

In my defence I got sidetracked by the "MYASRT" macro presented by the
OP, where he uses the OR operator, instead of the AND.

**jacob navia** · Nov 28 '07, 03:25 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

santosh wrote:

jacob navia wrote:
>

>santosh wrote:

>>gamename wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
>>>assert(foo== X);
>>>assert(foo== Y);
>>>assert(foo== Z);
>>>>
>>>Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
>>>MYASRT(foo , (X||Y||Z));
>>> ... or maybe...
>>>MYASRT(foo,O R,X,Y,Z));
>>What's wrong with:
>>>
>> assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);
>>>
>>>

>That is wrong!
>Should be:
>>
>>
> assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

>
Oops yes. You are right.
>
In my defence I got sidetracked by the "MYASRT" macro presented by the
OP, where he uses the OR operator, instead of the AND.
>

Yes but now that I think about it...

How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
original code???

>>>assert(foo== X);
>>>assert(foo== Y);
>>>assert(foo== Z);

That can't be right!

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

**santosh** · Nov 28 '07, 03:35 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:
>>

>>santosh wrote:
>>>gamename wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>>
>>>>Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
>>>>assert(foo= =X);
>>>>assert(foo= =Y);
>>>>assert(foo= =Z);
>>>>>
>>>>Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
>>>>MYASRT(fo o, (X||Y||Z));
>>>> ... or maybe...
>>>>MYASRT(foo, OR,X,Y,Z));
>>>What's wrong with:
>>>>
>>> assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);
>>>>
>>>>
>>That is wrong!
>>Should be:
>>>
>>>
>> assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

>>
>Oops yes. You are right.
>>
>In my defence I got sidetracked by the "MYASRT" macro presented by
>the OP, where he uses the OR operator, instead of the AND.
>>

>
Yes but now that I think about it...
>
How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
original code???

>>>assert(foo== X);
>>>assert(foo== Y);
>>>assert(foo== Z);

>
That can't be right!

Yes. The sequence of assert invocations as presented seem redundant. Of
course some code could occur between the calls or the OP might have
just presented this as an example to enquire about writing complex
expressions with assert.

**gamename** · Nov 28 '07, 03:45 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

Yes. The sequence of assert invocations as presented seem redundant. Of

course some code could occur between the calls or the OP might have
just presented this as an example to enquire about writing complex
expressions with assert.

Correct. The example is simplified for that purpose.

**=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Paetzel?=** · Nov 28 '07, 03:55 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

santosh schrieb:

>How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
>original code???

> >>>assert(foo== X);
> >>>assert(foo== Y);
> >>>assert(foo== Z);

>>
>That can't be right!

>
Yes. The sequence of assert invocations as presented seem redundant. Of
course some code could occur between the calls or the OP might have
just presented this as an example to enquire about writing complex
expressions with assert.

Maybe he wanted to something like this:

assert(foo==X== Y==Z);

/* ;) */

--
OMG,-10==10 in linux!

**CBFalconer** · Nov 28 '07, 11:05 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:
>>

.... snip ...

>>>
>> assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

>>

.... snip ...

>
Yes but now that I think about it...
>
How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
original code???
>

>>>>assert(foo= =X);
>>>>assert(foo= =Y);
>>>>assert(foo= =Z);

>
That can't be right!

#define foo n++
#enum {X, Y, Z);
int n = 0;

Now it passes the assert :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

**Francine.Neary@googlemail.com** · Nov 28 '07, 11:15 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

On Nov 28, 3:17 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.c omwrote:

santosh wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>

santosh wrote:
>gamename wrote:

>

>>Hi

>

>>Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
>>assert(foo==X );
>>assert(foo==Y );
>>assert(foo==Z );

>

>>Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
>>MYASRT(foo, (X||Y||Z));
>> ... or maybe...
>>MYASRT(foo,OR ,X,Y,Z));
>What's wrong with:

>

> assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);

>

That is wrong!
Should be:

>

assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

>

Oops yes. You are right.

>

In my defence I got sidetracked by the "MYASRT" macro presented by the
OP, where he uses the OR operator, instead of the AND.

>
Yes but now that I think about it...
>
How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
original code???

>>>assert(foo== X);
>>>assert(foo== Y);
>>>assert(foo== Z);

>
That can't be right!

Perhaps foo is a macro with side-effects?

>
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatiquehtt p://www.cs.virginia .edu/~lcc-win32

**jacob navia** · Nov 28 '07, 11:45 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

CBFalconer wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>santosh wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:
>>>

... snip ...

>>> assert(foo == X && foo == Y && foo == Z);

... snip ...

>Yes but now that I think about it...
>>
>How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
>original code???
>>

>>>>>assert(foo ==X);
>>>>>assert(foo ==Y);
>>>>>assert(foo ==Z);

>That can't be right!

>
#define foo n++
#enum {X, Y, Z);
int n = 0;
>
Now it passes the assert :-)
>

A macro with side effects within an
assert() expression.

That is *really* a bad programming style. Yes
everything is possible but *that* would be an abomination,
and a useless one, since the assert macro would NOT
increment the "counter" if NDEBUG was defined!

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

**Peter Nilsson** · Nov 29 '07, 12:05 AM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

gamename <namesagame-use...@yahoo.co mwrote:

Hi
>
Right now I do multiple asserts to verify multiple values:
assert(foo==X);
assert(foo==Y);
assert(foo==Z);
>
Is there any way to macro-ize this and do it in one call?
MYASRT(foo, (X||Y||Z));
... or maybe...
MYASRT(foo,OR,X ,Y,Z));

assert(foo == X || foo == Y || foo == Z);

--
Peter

**Ben Pfaff** · Nov 29 '07, 12:15 AM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

Someone wrote:

assert(foo==X);
assert(foo==Y);
assert(foo==Z);

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:

#define foo n++
#enum {X, Y, Z);
int n = 0;
>
Now it passes the assert :-)

Is assert guaranteed to evaluate its argument only once (without
NDEBUG)?

(Also, enum is not a preprocessor directive, and its list of
enumeration values ends in }).
--
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu" ;int putchar(int);in t main(void){unsi gned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x 9aa9aa6a,0xa77f fda9,0x7da6aa6a ,0xa67f6aaa,0xa a9aa9f6,0x11f6} ,*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+ =!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)bre ak;else default:continu e;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

**Barry Schwarz** · Nov 30 '07, 09:45 AM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:45:40 +0100, Björn Paetzel <news@kolrabi.d e>
wrote:

>santosh schrieb:
>

>>How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
>>original code???
>> >>>assert(foo== X);
>> >>>assert(foo== Y);
>> >>>assert(foo== Z);
>>>
>>That can't be right!

>>
>Yes. The sequence of assert invocations as presented seem redundant. Of
>course some code could occur between the calls or the OP might have
>just presented this as an example to enquire about writing complex
>expressions with assert.

>
>Maybe he wanted to something like this:
>
>assert(foo==X= =Y==Z);
>
>/* ;) */

Since == is not transitive in the same sense = is, it seems unlikely.

Remove del for email

**Philip Potter** · Nov 30 '07, 12:55 PM

Re: Can A Macro Do This?

Barry Schwarz wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:45:40 +0100, Björn Paetzel <news@kolrabi.d e>
wrote:
>

>santosh schrieb:
>>

>>>How can foo be 3 different things at the same time as in the
>>>original code???
>>> >>>assert(foo== X);
>>> >>>assert(foo== Y);
>>> >>>assert(foo== Z);
>>>>
>>>That can't be right!
>>Yes. The sequence of assert invocations as presented seem redundant. Of
>>course some code could occur between the calls or the OP might have
>>just presented this as an example to enquire about writing complex
>>expressions with assert.

>Maybe he wanted to something like this:
>>
>assert(foo==X= =Y==Z);
>>
>/* ;) */

>
Since == is not transitive in the same sense = is, it seems unlikely.

A relation R is transitive if a R b && b R c implies a R c for all
a,b,c. I believe this applies to == and it's even appropriate for =
because it isn't a relation.

Can A Macro Do This?

Can A Macro Do This?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment