Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pragmas (WAS: [Ir]reducible)
Message-ID: <6893@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 20 Dec 87 07:24:39 GMT
References: <6829@brl-smoke.ARPA> <9753@mimsy.UUCP> <6830@brl-smoke.ARPA> <6845@brl-smoke.ARPA> <475@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <3855@uw-june.UUCP> <6865@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3865@uw-june.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <3865@uw-june.UUCP> pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) writes:
>>In article <3855@uw-june.UUCP> pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) writes:
>>>... how about adding a "pragma" which looks like a procedure call.
[I had previously responded:]
>>... I don't understand just what it is that you are proposing.
>By adding even a small pragma mechanism to the language ...

Ah, now I see why I didn't understand.  The proposed ANSI C has had pragmas,
in the form
	#pragma	...stuff...
, for quite some time now.  You're suggesting a different syntax, so that
the preprocessor can be used to disable pragmas.