So I got to thinking about this some more... and the first option:

> #define while if
> #define continue
> #define break

has issues as well, because you can have statements like:

do {
    ....
} while ( ...);

and the #define while if is insufficient to keep that working...

just a thought..

Rolf

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:25:57 -0400, "M. Adam Davis" <stienman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I love how we're sitting around thinking about the most evil way to
> utterly break someone's code in a non-obvious fashion.
> 
> This is hilarious!
> 
> So now we've got either
> 
> #define while if
> #define continue
> #define break
> 
> or
> 
> #define if while
> #define else
> 
> The problem with the first is that it would break many more things
> than intended, as it would also affect for loops and switch
> statements.  I like that the program would continue to run, though -
> it wouldn't enter an infinite loop inside an if statement.
> 
> The second very narrowly targets if statements, but would be easier to
> catch as the program would likely stall inside the first if statement
> that evaluates to true.
> 
> Either way, someone doing this would likely find a shiv made out of a
> co-worker's keyboard in their back.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Marcel
> Birthelmer<marcelb.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> #define while if
>>>
>>
>> This would choke on break/continue statements, though.
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist