Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is #define THING -10 completely safe?
Message-ID: <15011@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 29 Jan 91 18:32:57 GMT
References: <33@christmas.UUCP> <14998@smoke.brl.mil> <2698@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <2698@wn1.sci.kun.nl> lwj@cs.kun.nl (Luc Rooijakkers) writes:
>In <14998@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>In article <33@christmas.UUCP> rtm@island.COM (Richard Minner) writes:
>>>Something I've been curious about, should the above be
>>>#define INT_MIN   (-2147483648)
>>Yes.
>This may have been the intention of the comittee.

I wasn't trying to interpret the intention of X3J11; the fellow asked
whether the implementation "should" parenthesize such definitions, and
I said "Yes".  I would hope that implementors would do so, and that
programmers would not write INT_MIN[p] in their code.