OK - I see it now.
I was thinking in terms of the macro CALL, not the macro "constructor".
So yeah, what you're saying now makes a lot more sense.
I can still see where someone may have some reason to want to do it that way,
especially if the second argument is an optional one, but I don't write computer
languages or parsers...
I will say that it's like a second camera in a scene, so there's still the
potential to issue a "duplicate argument found in macro declaration - ignoring
previous instance" kind of warning.
But your point is indeed a valid one, and something for macro writers to be
acutely aware of. (A similar but harder-to-spot error would be having a second
variable declaration later in the scene to overwrite the previous value. Kind
of the reverse of failing to update a counter in a while loop.)
Post a reply to this message