Charles C wrote:
> I've been working with the assumption that an occasional call to an 
> #included macro containing tight loop calling a second macro in the same 
> #include file many times should be fairly efficient, based I think on 
> posted tests from back-when and what Warp said again just now.
> Charles
Yeah, that would seem right, but that is the solution I didn't want to 
use only because it would result in redundant copies of a macro that I 
wrote precisely to isolate reusable code.  Oh well, it is really more 
about design aesthetics than parse time anyway.

I wonder if it would make a difference if the whole thing was wrapped in 
a macro.  I'll try some tests.

Post a reply to this message