Dear Anton Staaf,
In message CAF6FioWbAvTnL0m2ch4Xd5O51bp7SX=LLOPG0DXNSzSfwVvm+g@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I'm not sure which example you mean. If you mean his #define of the masks explicitly, those are fine by me. My above statement is about the masking, oring and shifting that is done in the same way every time and could be encoded in a macro that makes it easier to see what exactly is going on. Or did I misunderstand which example you mean?
I disagree with your statement that such a macro "makes it easier to see what exactly is going on." On contrary, such a macro would _hide_ what is going on. This may be ok and even intentional in some places, but here it is not helpful, even if it seems so you you.
Quote Larry Wall (from the perlstyle(1) man page): Even if you aren't in doubt, consider the mental welfare of the per- son who has to maintain the code after you ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk