Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Octal
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:21:59 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <lnful752yg.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <o3tsi4$es8$1@dont-email.me> <9f751874-98cf-4208-b809-9e6424600ac6@googlegroups.com> <o3tvf6$orj$1@dont-email.me> <e973caed-1397-4811-ad57-242b672edcd8@googlegroups.com> <o3u0t8$udg$1@dont-email.me> <5de6cdd0-6a36-40da-9bd6-4387d43c7947@googlegroups.com> <o3u4h0$c7m$1@dont-email.me> <9cb7833a-8479-4e61-8398-690783c4d975@googlegroups.com> <o3u96r$t9f$1@dont-email.me> <lnmvfh6s9t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <o3uqga$1g2$1@dont-email.me> <ln37h87udw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <o3v2hu$qq5$1@dont-email.me> <lntw9o6cr1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <o407g6$dgp$1@dont-email.me> <a1f82620-a8cb-472f-b9e1-3b480f084587@googlegroups.com> <o40r4j$cqc$1@dont-email.me> <slrn3vfso67te3.sbb.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> <o40tkb$l69$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="eac9cc7ad54a0b680082b6004da4ef88"; logging-data="8756"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TPQIuYy1yoodj2AbY61h+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JV6yeHC0CrDWMzf6hAtQUhkTL3g= sha1:DUTN42JoCRwemgpaYJIIq1BxXAw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:100456

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 28/12/2016 17:25, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2016-12-28, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> How was it possible to have a language that gave different results
>>> depending on how the preprocessing rules were interpreted?
>>
>> Did you miss the phrase "Prior to the C standard [...]" in supercat's
>> post?
>
> It doesn't change my point.

I think it does.

>                             Have the result of two consecutive macro 
> expansions be either "A B" or "AB" is quite a big deal to just be left 
> to the whim of an implementer.

Now that we have a standard, the behavior is unambiguous.  You're
inventing a problem that does not exist.

And if, as you said elsethread, you're going to implement a C
preprocessor while ignoring the requirements of the standard, you're
actually *creating* a problem that does not currently exist.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"