Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!talcott!kendall
From: kendall@talcott.UUCP (Sam Kendall)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: "Funny" names in programs (BLISS lexical functions)
Message-ID: <249@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 15:42:53 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.249
Posted: Tue Jan 22 15:42:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:09:33 EST
References: <248@decwrl.UUCP> <319@desint.UUCP>
Organization: Sociology Dept., Harvard Univ.
Lines: 24

> >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 ....
> -- 
> 	Geoff Kuenning

This IS interesting; intricate macro semantics make for fun puzzles.
But we can consider it a feature of C that it has a weak macro
preprocessor--there are already enough tricks available to C
programmers.  I would hate to see the preprocessor extended beyond what
the standards committee has in mind (which is not much beyond K&R), and
I would particularly hate to see "deep" macro functionality added,
e.g., the ability to execute preprocessor directives inside expanded
macros.

    All who agree with me, show your support by NOT sending in your
list of neat preprocessor extensions!

	Sam Kendall	  {allegra,ihnp4,ima,amd}!wjh12!kendall
	Delft Consulting Corp.	    decvax!genrad!wjh12!kendall