Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!olivea!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi
From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Another sizeof question
Message-ID: <2670@cirrusl.UUCP>
Date: 9 Nov 90 04:51:26 GMT
References: <2638@cirrusl.UUCP> <1990Nov1.162942.3609@zoo.toronto.edu> <2654@cirrusl.UUCP> <14343@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Lines: 15

In <14343@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:

     In any case, we have been telling people for years that if they
     want a macro processor they should use something like "m4" rather
     than rely on cpp.

Were UNIX the only environment to be considered, m4 could be considered
a tolerable macro processor.  But include non-UNIX systems, and the
*only* macro processor that comes close to being ubiquitous and a de
facto standard is the one described by K&R.  This is why it's a loss
that the standardization of C wasn't accompanied by the standardization
of C's preprocessor as a stand-alone program.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi