Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!ima!dirtydog!karl
From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Talking about scanf
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.001632.10219@dirtydog.ima.isc.com>
Date: 18 Nov 90 00:16:32 GMT
References: <16582@netcom.UUCP> <VXogs2w163w@cybrspc> <960@mwtech.UUCP> <1990Nov16.125504.305@sc2a.unige.ch>
Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN)
Reply-To: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems
Lines: 17

In article <1990Nov16.125504.305@sc2a.unige.ch> fisher@sc2a.unige.ch writes:
>As another workaround, it seems that some compilers *do* expand macros inside
>strings and character constants, in which case you could use the `X' there.

I refuse to believe that.  Some non-ANSI preprocessors expand *macro
arguments* inside string literals within the macro, but I've never heard of
one that expanded macros in string literals in the program.  It would break
too much code.

>In TC, for example, you can "stringize" a macro...

It's not a TC invention; stringizing and string literal pasting are available
in all ANSI C compilers.  Note that it doesn't help you if X was defined as an
expression like `(99+1)', since the C preprocessor (unlike, say, m4) doesn't
have a way to reduce constant expressions.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint