Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Funny" names in programs (BLISS lexical functions)
Message-ID: <319@desint.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 20:17:20 EST
Article-I.D.: desint.319
Posted: Sat Jan 19 20:17:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 05:30:30 EST
References: <248@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: his home computer, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 20

In article <248@decwrl.UUCP> ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET) writes:

>BLISS has had a cleaner way to handle this for some
>time:  it has a lexical function %name(), which causes its string
>argument to be treated as a name regardless of the normal naming rules.
>...
>BLISS has a lot of other useful lexical functions also.  In fact it
>makes the C pre-processor look pretty dull by comparison.  Consider:
>[long list of functions]

This is interesting;  I'd known of these at one time and forgotten them.
Some of them aren't appropriate to C, but I think we should take a long look
at them with a view to extending the defined(x)/undefined(x) stuff that the
current preprocessor takes.  Mind you, I'm not suggesting hacking these onto
the standard--the standard is too far along with that.  But I'd like to see
some experimental compilers with some of this stuff.
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff