Re: [Codemill-spec] Re: Codemill spec
Status: Planning
Brought to you by:
richard_kolb
|
From: Richard K. <rk...@sw...> - 2000-12-06 07:36:27
|
Hi Paul,
John Lindal wrote:
> I would suggest -b instead of -d, since the standard terminology is "base
> class".
>
Ok, not a problem.
> Also, to allow it to be used via make, which is the easiest way to specify
> the include paths, I would suggest the same syntax as makedepend:
>
> codemill -- <garbage> -I./ <garbage> -DMY_DEFINE <garbage> -- -c
> NewClass -b BaseClass -t template.5 -o output.cc output.h
>
> This allows one to dump ${CPPFLAGS} between the --'s. This also brings up
> the point that many people use preprocessor symbols in the class
> declarations to allow the code to compile on UNIX/Win/Mac. This means that
> -D also has to be parsed when it occurs between the --'s.
I can see the importance of using CPPFLAGS but,
How would code mill use defines?
Thanks,
Richard.
|