Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!ucbvax!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com ("diamond@tkovoa")
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: macro substitution in character literals
Message-ID: <9012101932.AA14624@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Date: 10 Dec 90 19:32:45 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 17

In article <14683@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <11323@pt.cs.cmu.edu> mbj@natasha.mach.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Jones) writes:
>>Is there an equivalent for character literals?
>There is no analogous "charize" operator.
(True, of course.)
 
>It was deemed to be significantly
>less useful than "stringizing", and did not have enough supporters to make
>it into the standard.
 
You mean it was not an oversight, that it was deliberate?
Well, we certainly see evidence over and over again on the net.
"The reports of our non-existence are greatly exaggerated."
 
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.