Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Macro names imbedded in pp-numbers [repost]
Message-ID: <11149@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 20 Nov 89 02:01:08 GMT
References: <11134@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <11637@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: diamond@ws.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 23

In article <11134@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>, I wrote:

>> in the pp-number 0x7e-getchar() it is illegal for my preprocessor to
>> expand the getchar() macro.  This appears
>> to match the committee's intention, is not optional, and is not
>> implementation-defined.  Why?

In article <11637@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:

>The Rationale explains that.

The Rationale explains why the committee did not want to force
preprocessors to do a complete true scan of numerics.  Fine.  My
question is, why did the committee go to the other extreme and prohibit
it?  Why is it not optional, and why is it not implementation-defined?
The Rationale does not explain that.  You say that the committee heard
all the arguments?  Fine, so what reason did they give?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".