![]() ![]() (Whether that would be recommended is debatable though. The default values are defined at the caller side and are not part of the function signature. Such declarations could be present in different translation units with different default values. This essentially overloads the function: It defines a set of four distinct functions that take 3, 2, 1 or 0 arguments, respectively. To remove a macro definition using undef, give only the macro identifier, not a parameter list. Consequently, subsequent occurrences of identifier are ignored by the preprocessor. In this case one could provide default arguments in the function declaration: void myFunc(uint8_t temp = 10, uint32_t value = 15, bool valid = true) Syntax undef identifier Remarks The undef directive removes the current definition of identifier. ![]() Therefore, C++ provides means to avoid using it. By using the define directive, you can define macros with names, arguments (if any), and the. They act as your personal assistant, performing text replacement before the compilation process begins. Nonetheless, the preprocessor is text replacement and as such inherently unsafe. Macros in C language are preprocessor directives that allow you to automate tasks, define constants, and create shortcuts for code snippets. All preprocessor solutions provided in the answers here work equally well in both languages. Note that the macro expansion does not end with a semicolon so that it can (and must) be provided at the call site in the natural fashion: if(cond) MY_FUNC_DEFAULTS() else g() works as expected.īecause you originally asked about C++: I find some of the OCD types here a bit annoying. This looks also fairly clean, retains the function syntax etc. #define MY_FUNC_DEFAULTS() myFunc(10, 15, true) Another, not uncommon solution would be to use a function-like macro right away, e.g. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |