Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux

lewbloch wrote:


But for completeness:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/index.html#Top
"The C preprocessor implements the macro language used to transform C,
C++, and Objective-C programs before they are compiled. It can also be
useful on its own."

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Overview.html#Overview
"The C preprocessor, often known as cpp, is a macro processor that is
used automatically by the C compiler to transform your program before
compilation."

From the bash shell:

$ which cpp
/usr/bin/cpp
$ ls -l /usr/bin/cpp
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 May 31 12:37 /usr/bin/cpp -> cpp-4.4
$ ls -l /usr/bin/cpp-4.4
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 255192 Mar 26 2010 /usr/bin/cpp-4.4

This can be learned from reading the frakkin' manual as suggested!
Does everyone have to be spoonfed everything?

The idea here is to follow the general principle, e.g., RTFM!, so that
one can be independently brilliant. Just because I only led you to
the door and didn't open it and spread roses in your path doesn't make
my advice bad. I anticipate that any real programmer will take the
hint and do their own homework, once shown where they can look.

For example, the poster who whined about wanting a standalone
preprocessor could have easily looked up those links posted here,
given the hint that it was at least possible that the indicated
documentation would yield that data. For that matter, so could you
have. It would have been far more helpful for you to post the
additional data to help that whiner than to speciously complain that I
didn't. Don't you want to be helpful?

But in the end, monolithic or separate, they get the ability to run
the preprocessor on its own EVEN WERE IT PART OF A MONOLITHIC
PROGRAM! Why wouldn't that suit, hm?

So let's fry that red herring and eat it, not proffer it as some sort
of valid counterargument.

RTFM!

--
Lew
RTFM!