version and debug statements

[Walter Bright]

pragma wrote:

> Walter, I mean no disrespect here, but I simply must ask: Are you talking about
> a literal interpretation of version() and debug(), including the lack of an
> #ifndef equivalent?  
> 
> Like this:
> 
> #ifdef FOOBAR
> #else
> /*** code ***/
> #endif
> 
> Or like this (using ifndef):
> 
> #ifndef FOOBAR
> /*** code ***/
> #endif
> 
> I don't think that version() and debug() need to be tangled up with all kinds of
> boolean expressions, but maybe a short-and-sweet concession to allow an
> equivalent to #ifndef is in order?  Sure its just "one line more readable" but
> it *is* more readable after all. 

Consider another perspective: when a version of the code is being built, 
one thinks about a version being build, not a "not version". If you find 
that you're writing:

version (FOOBAR)
else
{
	...
}

I suggest that perhaps FOOBAR is the wrong name for the version being 
compiled. For example, I would red flag code that looked like:

version (Windows)
else
{
	...
}

I also have a particular dislike for the execrable double negative style 
often seen in C:

#ifndef NO_FOO
...
#endif

There is some psychobabble research on this, suggesting that people tend 
to skip nots, and even more often miss double negatives. I know that in 
airplane pilot jargon, considerable effort has been made to purge 
negations and replace them with positive statements, as they are less 
prone to misinterpretation.

Some more examples:

1) Don't build a "NOTFULL" version, build a "DEMO" version.
2) Don't build a "NOTDEMO" version, build a "FULL" version.
3) Don't build a "NOHARDTABS" version, build a "SOFTTABS" version.

etc. If there are some specifics cases you feel just don't fit with 
this, can you post them?