Path: csiph.com!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Macro Expansion
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:59:18 +1300
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <edda67FatdfU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <o4rcbl$4cp$1@dont-email.me> <o4ri5t$pqj$1@dont-email.me> <874m1appnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o4rr80$pj7$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net sMcBdCE1IuIXXwfMsh0gMwLc6i2EAAeJ5ql7FKM/1ytS+p2RUR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PSW9Otn/gQcww5+bs+wbMQuc+IU=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
In-Reply-To: <o4rr80$pj7$1@dont-email.me>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:101264

On 01/ 8/17 11:50 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 07/01/2017 20:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> I wish they would just state all this stuff instead of leaving people
>>> to either deduce it or eventually discover it for themselves.
>>
>> "They" (presumably the C committee) have an obligation to be precise
>> rather than explanatory.  It's the various books and tutorials about C
>> that should explain this in simpler terms.  If no such thing exists -- a
>> lot of C tutorials are either overly simplistic or wrong -- then it's
>> not the fault of the C committee.
>
> Who was responsible for standardising such a complicated macro language?
> I can't believe most C programmers are aware of all arcane details.

They aren't, which is why they avoid them!

-- 
Ian