Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Token pasting in #include directive
Message-ID: <11692@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Nov 89 21:01:19 GMT
References: <11160@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <1989Nov22.222413.3874@utzoo.uucp> <11188@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <11685@smoke.BRL.MIL> <17358@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <17358@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>when an item is defined to be `implementation defined' the example
>should be considered to be an example of how ONE implementation
>may chose to define the behavior.

I don't recall ANY of the examples in the Standard attempting to
illustrate one interpretation of implementation-defined behavior.
Certainly the example under discussion was not one such.