Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!think!ames!amdahl!nw
From: nw@amdahl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Incrementing of preprocessor symbols
Message-ID: <6403@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 15:40:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.6403
Posted: Tue Apr 28 15:40:20 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Apr-87 01:37:43 EDT
References: <3424@vrdxhq.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 23
Keywords: C #define
Summary: This has been considered by X3J11

In article <3424@vrdxhq.UUCP>, deller@vrdxhq.UUCP (Steven Deller) writes:
> I would note that any self-respecting macro facility for any assembler can do 
> this sort of thing with its eyes closed and one macro expansion behind its 
> back.  If as I am beginning to suspect, this is not possible with C, then 
> perhaps the C standards committee might take note.

The committee has considered and rejected ideas like this a number of
times.  There are two reasons usually given:  Lack of "prior art"--the
committee's charter is to codify existing practice, NOT to define a new
language and call it "C".  I know that hasn't always held us back but
that's another story :-)  The other reason is that environments that
support a C compiler usually also support good stand alone macro
facilities such as m4 in UN*X.

The opinions expressed above are mine (but I'm willing to share.)

			Regards,
And the sign said               Neal Weidenhofer
   "The words of the prophet    ...{hplabs|ihnp4|seismo|decwrl}!amdahl!nw
Are written on the subway walls Amdahl Corporation
   And tenement halls..."       1250 E. Arques Ave. (M/S 316)
				Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470
				(408)737-5007