Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <hbaker-1708951006000001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom13.netcom.com
Organization: nil organization
References: <40t027$7j9@hardcopy.ny.jpmorgan.com> <40tk13$qms@wcap.centerline.com> <40u0bn$g95@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> <40vr1e$pq2@wcap.centerline.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:06:00 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:36979 comp.lang.eiffel:10426 comp.lang.c++:144480 comp.lang.smalltalk:27315

In article <40vr1e$pq2@wcap.centerline.com>, chase@centerline.com (David
Chase) wrote:

> Also in practice, one can create a pair of macros that I'll call
> "PAINTED_INT(typename)", and use them like this:
> 
> #ifdef DEBUG
> #define PAINTED_INT(t) \
>   class t { /* Definition of a class with integer-like behavior */ \
>   ... \
>   }
> #else
> typedef int t
> #endif
> 
> While debugging, you get the checks, but when not debugging, you get the
> speed.

Why do you call them 'painted ints' ??

Do you colourize them, or what ??

-- 
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
