«

I hope comp.lang.c will not find the following question as a
complete off-topic.

I would like to remove ie.comment out the 'cout' statements during
compilation(actually preprocessing) time.


The statements like this:
cout<<"something\n" ;
should be made as
// cout<<"something\n" ;


I tried for the following. But, It doesn't seem to be working.


//--------START
#ifdef DEBUG
#define COUT std::cout
#else
#define COUT \/\/
#endif

int main()
{
COUT<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;
}

//--------END


If you can solve the above problem, please suggest a way for taking
care of
commenting out the 'cout' statements that spans in more than 1 line.
eg:

12 COUT<<"HELLO\n"
13 <<"WORLD\n" ;

"qazmlp" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I hope comp.lang.c will not find the following question as a
> complete off-topic.
>
> I would like to remove ie.comment out the 'cout' statements during
> compilation(actually preprocessing) time.
>
>
> The statements like this:
> cout<<"something\n" ;
> should be made as
> // cout<<"something\n" ;
>
>
> I tried for the following. But, It doesn't seem to be working.
>
>
> //--------START
> #ifdef DEBUG
> #define COUT std::cout
> #else
> #define COUT \/\/
> #endif
>
> int main()
> {
> COUT<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;
> }
>
> //--------END
>
>
> If you can solve the above problem, please suggest a way for taking
> care of
> commenting out the 'cout' statements that spans in more than 1 line.
> eg:
>
> 12 COUT<<"HELLO\n"
> 13 <<"WORLD\n" ;

This is most definately a c++ question, but the same concept works in c.
The preprocessor directly copies across what you have in a define, so why
not just have
#define COUT //
Allan

"qazmlp" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I hope comp.lang.c will not find the following question as a
> complete off-topic.
>
> I would like to remove ie.comment out the 'cout' statements during
> compilation(actually preprocessing) time.
>
>
> The statements like this:
> cout<<"something\n" ;
> should be made as
> // cout<<"something\n" ;
>
>

Sorry, it is off-topic here. cout is a part of C++, not C.

[snip]

--
Jeff

"Jeff" <> wrote...
>
> "qazmlp" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > I hope comp.lang.c will not find the following question as a
> > complete off-topic.
> >
> > I would like to remove ie.comment out the 'cout' statements during
> > compilation(actually preprocessing) time.
> >
> >
> > The statements like this:
> > cout<<"something\n" ;
> > should be made as
> > // cout<<"something\n" ;
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, it is off-topic here. cout is a part of C++, not C.

Sorry, Jeff, statements explaining what is off-topic in
comp.lang.c are off-topic in comp.lang.c++. And give "qazmlp"
a break, he expressed his hope, didn't he?

Victor

"Allan Bruce" <> wrote...
> [...]
> This is most definately a c++ question, but the same concept works in c.

Why is it "definately" a C++ question? C has end-of-line comments.
Depending on how 'cout' is declared, it can be seen as a valid C
construct as well (just as in C++ I can declare it whatever I want
without including the <iostream>)...

> The preprocessor directly copies across what you have in a define, so why
> not just have
> #define COUT //

Why not? Simple. Comments are replaced with a single space char
before macro processing is ever begins. So, the directive you
wrote will be

#define COUT

after the phase 3 of the translation in both languages.

Victor

"Derk Gwen" <> wrote...
> # //--------START
> # #ifdef DEBUG
> # #define COUT std::cout
> # #else
> # #define COUT \/\/
> # #endif
>
> How about
> #ifdef DEBUG
> #define COUT if (1) std::cout
> #else
> #define COUT if (0) std::cout
> #endif
>
> If you optimise, the unexecutable code after if (0) should be excised.
>
> # 12 COUT<<"HELLO\n"
> # 13 <<"WORLD\n" ;
>
> if (1) std::cout <<"HELLO\n"
> <<"WORLD\n" ;
>
> if (0) std::cout <<"HELLO\n"
> <<"WORLD\n" ;

This approach has a major flaw. Imagine what this will expand into

if (somecondition)
COUT << "HELLO";
else
puts("condition is not met");

This is why it's better to use 'while' for that:

#ifdef WHATEVER
#define COUT std::cout
#else
#define COUT while(0) std::cout
#endif

However, that doesn't address the OP's concern that the code still
remains not compileable by a C compiler. It would be much better
to remove any reference to 'std::cout' whatsoever.

#ifdef __cplusplus
#define COUT std::cout
#else
#define COUT ????
#endif

I don't have a solution. The biggest problem in such case is how
you deal with user-define types that can be output using the C++
shift operator:

SomeUDT udt;
std::cout << udt; // is not uncommon in C++ programs

Making the whole statement invisible to the compiler (after the
preprocessing stage) is the task at hand (or at least how I see
it)...

Victor

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:24:26 -0400, "Victor Bazarov"
<> wrote:

>"Allan Bruce" <> wrote...
>> [...]
>> This is most definately a c++ question, but the same concept works in c.
>
>Why is it "definately" a C++ question? C has end-of-line comments.
>Depending on how 'cout' is declared, it can be seen as a valid C
>construct as well (just as in C++ I can declare it whatever I want
>without including the <iostream>)...

I'm curious - just how would you declare 'cout" to make

std::cout<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;

a valid C construct?

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting

"Alan Balmer" <> wrote...
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:24:26 -0400, "Victor Bazarov"
> <> wrote:
>
> >"Allan Bruce" <> wrote...
> >> [...]
> >> This is most definately a c++ question, but the same concept works in
c.
> >
> >Why is it "definately" a C++ question? C has end-of-line comments.
> >Depending on how 'cout' is declared, it can be seen as a valid C
> >construct as well (just as in C++ I can declare it whatever I want
> >without including the <iostream>)...
>
> I'm curious - just how would you declare 'cout" to make
>
> std::cout<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;
>
> a valid C construct?

I didn't say that the entire statement is a valid construct.
I said 'cout' could be a valid construct. To make 'cout' valid
all you need to do is

int cout;

In the context of the thread there was no requirement to make
'std::cout<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;' a valid C construct.

Victor

"Alan Balmer" <> wrote...
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:40:58 -0400, "Victor Bazarov"
> <> wrote:
>
> >"Alan Balmer" <> wrote...
> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:24:26 -0400, "Victor Bazarov"
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Allan Bruce" <> wrote...
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> This is most definately a c++ question, but the same concept works
in
> >c.
> >> >
> >> >Why is it "definately" a C++ question? C has end-of-line comments.
> >> >Depending on how 'cout' is declared, it can be seen as a valid C
> >> >construct as well (just as in C++ I can declare it whatever I want
> >> >without including the <iostream>)...
> >>
> >> I'm curious - just how would you declare 'cout" to make
> >>
> >> std::cout<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;
> >>
> >> a valid C construct?
> >
> >I didn't say that the entire statement is a valid construct.
> >I said 'cout' could be a valid construct. To make 'cout' valid
> >all you need to do is
> >
> > int cout;
> >
> >In the context of the thread there was no requirement to make
> >'std::cout<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;' a valid C construct.
> >
> >Victor
> >
> The context of the thread was that you were contesting the statement
> that the OP's question concerned C++.

No, I wasn't. That's something you just invented. The OP's question
concerns both C++ and C. Off-topicality of the OP's question in
comp.lang.c is what I was contesting.

Victor

"qazmlp" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I hope comp.lang.c will not find the following question as a
> complete off-topic.
>
> I would like to remove ie.comment out the 'cout' statements during
> compilation(actually preprocessing) time.
>
>
> The statements like this:
> cout<<"something\n" ;
> should be made as
> // cout<<"something\n" ;
>
>
> I tried for the following. But, It doesn't seem to be working.
>
>
> //--------START
> #ifdef DEBUG
> #define COUT std::cout
> #else
> #define COUT \/\/
> #endif
>
> int main()
> {
> COUT<<"HELLO\n"<<std::endl ;
> }
>
> //--------END
>
>
> If you can solve the above problem, please suggest a way for taking
> care of
> commenting out the 'cout' statements that spans in more than 1 line.
> eg:
>
> 12 COUT<<"HELLO\n"
> 13 <<"WORLD\n" ;

Maybe you could create your own stream and use that as cout, i.e
#if !defined(DEBUG) && defined(__cplusplus)
class MyStream : public std:stream \
{ \
template <class T> \
MyStream& operator << (const T& obj) \
{ return *this; } \
}; \
#define COUT MyStream
#else
#define COUT std::cout
#endif
I'm not sure if the above code will work, I'm especially not too sure about
the template bit. And it most definitely would not work on c systems! Maybe
you could define cout to be an int and the << operator to be + , i.e
#if !defined(DEBUG) && !defined(__cplusplus)
int bogus_cout;
#define COUT bogus_cout=
#define << +
#elif !defined(DEBUG) && defined(__cplusplus)
class MyStream : public std:stream \
{ \
template <class T> \
MyStream& operator << (const T& obj) \
{ return *this; } \
}; \
#define COUT MyStream
#else
#define COUT std::cout
#endif
But you would need to be 100% sure that the code in question does not use
the << _anywhere_. Hope this helps anyway!
S. Armondi