Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!se-sd!rns
From: rns@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Another sizeof question
Message-ID: <4145@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 90 20:44:46 GMT
References: <13171@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <2638@cirrusl.UUCP>
Organization: NCR Corp., Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 13

In <2638@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

>I was a little surprised to discover that ANSI C tries to allow the
>preprocessor to be separately implementable, but it does not require it
>to be separately available.

Remember that the task of X3J11 was to define the C language.  It tried not
to dictate how to implement the language (other than to specify what the
language was that was to be implemented; I know that's a simplification).
Requiring such things listings, cross-references, assembly language output, and
preprocessor output was beyond the charter of the Committee.

-- Rick Schubert (rns@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM)