Comments on: Three deficiencies in the C# preprocessor http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/ The blogged wandering of Robert W. Anderson Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:33:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Expert Texture » Perils of #define http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-190282 Expert Texture » Perils of #define Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:19:38 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-190282 [...] couple of years ago, I wrote Three deficiencies in the C# preprocessor.  Those issues still exist, but a good thing about C# is you don’t get the following problem [...] [...] couple of years ago, I wrote Three deficiencies in the C# preprocessor.  Those issues still exist, but a good thing about C# is you don’t get the following problem [...]

]]> By: Reinier Post http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-136299 Reinier Post Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:19:50 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-136299 (Sorry, retry.) I *am* using this, but in VB: #If VBC_VER *lt; 8.0 Then I came here Googling for the name of the corresponding variable in C#. (Other people do write code in C#.) Can't find anything on MSDN. (It's small things like these that make me prefer VB.) (Sorry, retry.)

I *am* using this, but in VB:

#If VBC_VER *lt; 8.0 Then

I came here Googling for the name of the corresponding variable in C#.
(Other people do write code in C#.) Can’t find anything on MSDN.

(It’s small things like these that make me prefer VB.)

]]> By: Robert W. Anderson http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-39464 Robert W. Anderson Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:16:58 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-39464 Actually, no, I meant "write another". I meant something very simplistic that, in my case, would simple remove lines with <strong>#pragma warning</strong>. I don't think the C++ pre-processor would do well for this, but maybe it would work. I didn't really go into detail on how we do cross-compilation: there is a post-build step run from VS2005 that calls <strong>nant</strong> that in turn invokes a build for .NET 1.1 from the command-line. This is where hte __DOTNET11__ constant is defined, <em>not</em> in the C# source code. I actually don't like the multi-configuration idea: I want both builds every time. Cheers. Actually, no, I meant “write another”. I meant something very simplistic that, in my case, would simple remove lines with #pragma warning. I don’t think the C++ pre-processor would do well for this, but maybe it would work.

I didn’t really go into detail on how we do cross-compilation: there is a post-build step run from VS2005 that calls nant that in turn invokes a build for .NET 1.1 from the command-line. This is where hte __DOTNET11__ constant is defined, not in the C# source code.

I actually don’t like the multi-configuration idea: I want both builds every time.

Cheers.

]]> By: w7 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-38820 w7 Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:17:56 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-38820 Thanks for your feedback, Robert. #2 should simply read "use another...", not "write another...". You should be able to use the standard C/C++ preprocessor as a pre-build step, but I am not totally sure if the C# project can be configed in that way. With regards to my issue, your suggestions are gratefully received but don't quite do the trick for me (it's the same source code, so I cannot define one macro in one source file and another in the second). I guess I'll follow somebody else's recommendation to create different build configurations ("Release .NET 2", "Release .NET 1.1", etc), and instruct people to use the correct ones. Thanks for your feedback, Robert. #2 should simply read “use another…”, not “write another…”. You should be able to use the standard C/C++ preprocessor as a pre-build step, but I am not totally sure if the C# project can be configed in that way.

With regards to my issue, your suggestions are gratefully received but don’t quite do the trick for me (it’s the same source code, so I cannot define one macro in one source file and another in the second). I guess I’ll follow somebody else’s recommendation to create different build configurations (“Release .NET 2″, “Release .NET 1.1″, etc), and instruct people to use the correct ones.

]]> By: Robert W. Anderson http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-38442 Robert W. Anderson Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:24:45 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-38442 Thanks for the comment. For cross-compilation, we define a __DOTNET11__ constant in the .NET 1.1 projects. That works OK, aside from my desire to use the new #pragma statement. If you need to get around new preprocessor commands, then the choices become kind of heinous: 1. Encapsulate the new code in .NET-version specific files. 2. Write another pre-processor (or filter out invalid pre-processor statements using regexs). I've done #1 in a couple of cases, and will probably do #2 as we get closer to our next release. Cheers, Robert Thanks for the comment.
For cross-compilation, we define a __DOTNET11__ constant in the .NET 1.1 projects. That works OK, aside from my desire to use the new #pragma statement. If you need to get around new preprocessor commands, then the choices become kind of heinous:
1. Encapsulate the new code in .NET-version specific files.
2. Write another pre-processor (or filter out invalid pre-processor statements using regexs).
I’ve done #1 in a couple of cases, and will probably do #2 as we get closer to our next release.
Cheers,
Robert

]]> By: w7 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/comment-page-1/#comment-38021 w7 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:58:02 +0000 http://rwandering.net/2006/06/08/three-deficiencies-in-the-c-preprocessor/#comment-38021 Signed, approved, agreed. What is your recommendation re/ the __CLR_VER issue? I have C# code that needs compiling in VS .NET 2003 and VS .NET 2005, where the latter requires a few tweaks, so I'd like to use conditional compilation just in the very way that you indicated won't work with the C# preprocessor. Signed, approved, agreed.
What is your recommendation re/ the __CLR_VER issue? I have C# code that needs compiling in VS .NET 2003 and VS .NET 2005, where the latter requires a few tweaks, so I’d like to use conditional compilation just in the very way that you indicated won’t work with the C# preprocessor.

]]>