RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478

Yes, this makes sense.  I'll change the sentence to say an "embedded
macro definition".  I'll also put an example in there.  On your second
point I think the sentence makes this very clear when I say that
"however the backslash continues the multi-line macro and not the
embedded macro (definition)" This implies that the embedded macro
definition can only be one line.  I was stewing over that wording last
night, trying to see if there was a way to make the sentence clear and
explicitly state that the embedded macro had to be one line but didn't
come up with it.  If you think it's a must, I'll stew on it some more. 

 

And yes, we'll move the last sentence out of that paragraph.

 

 

________________________________

From: Bresticker, Shalom 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:54 AM
To: Alsop, Thomas R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478

 

Regarding 1478, without something like `begin_define...`end_define, I
don't see a way to embed a multi-line macro within another one. However,
we do embed one-line macros within multi-line macros. This requires
defining the behavior in the LRM to say that in such a case, the
backslash belongs to the multi-line macro. This is what you wrote, but
it is necessary to clarify (1) that when you say embedded macro, you
mean an embedded macro definition, as opposed to an embedded macro call,
and (2) since the backslash belongs to the multi-line macro, the
embedded macro definition ends at the end of the line, so that you can
embed a one-line macro, but not a multi-line macro definition. There
should be an example also.

 

Finally, the last sentence, "Any white space characters at the beginning
or end of the macro text shall be removed," should be moved or separated
so show that it is general and not describing only this special case.

 

Thanks,

Shalom

	 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.