Re: [Codemill-spec] Re: Codemill spec

[Richard K. <rk...@sw...>]

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.