Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: "Broken" compilers
Message-ID: <5776@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 3 May 90 00:53:16 GMT
References: <1990Apr25.165602.974@craycos.com> <1990Apr26.125851.20728@contact.uucp> <1626@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <16582@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1640@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 30

In article <1640@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) writes:
>In article <16582@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
> >The 509-character limit to which you seem to refer is for a "logical source
> >line", which is what you have after backslash-newline splicing but *before*
> >macro expansion.  Peter's example does not exceed this limit.
>
>A logical source line means *both* before and after macro expansion.  The
>limit applies until phase 7.  (I also have a letter from Tom Plum, though
>not a formal ANSI ruling, that the limit applies after macro expansion.)

Just thought I'd add that you'll never quite get a "formal
ANSI ruling" on it, as ANSI doesn't do interpretations,
according to the description on the copyright page (guess
whose copy just arrived, a mere 9 days after he mailed the
check -- would that the standard itself were put together
so promptly...).  They suggest writing to the Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association.

So, a letter from Tom Plum, Vice Chair of Technical
Committee X3J11, is about as formal as it gets.

(Interestingly enough, the clause where ANSI states they don't
give interpretations is mere words after the one that states
they don't develop standards...)

				--Blair
				  "Yup, it's ambiguous."

P.S.  Hey, Doug!  Where's the part where it says I can add &x to &y?
P.P.S.  *&:-)