Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!att-ih!pacbell!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Quote without comment on char constant expansion
Message-ID: <11256@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 28 Apr 88 10:06:11 GMT
References: <4418@hoptoad.uucp> <3432@haddock.ISC.COM> <7677@brl-smoke.ARPA> <18523@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 29

[various depths of quoting deleted]
In article <11056@mimsy.UUCP> I wrote
>perhaps there should be a `charize' operator.

(Please note that this is someone else's argument; I am not claiming
it as my own.  After all the trimming this became unclear.  For one
thing, I would probably not call it `charize': `stringize' is an ugly
word, and `charize' is worse.  Ah, aesthetics. :-) )

In article <18523@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu
(Ray Butterworth) writes:
>Better yet, if some future version of the Standard decides that
>a "charize" operator would be a good thing, what on Earth are they
>going to call it?  ### ?

>Why did the committee come up with such a limited and non-obvious
>naming scheme for the preprocessor operators?

In fact, there was a proposal for a more rational scheme, similar
to either your `renamed' or `resyntaxed' versions---I have forgotten
the details---but it got bogged down somehow, and eventually vanished.
A minor tragedy, to be sure, but, I think, a tragedy nonetheless.

>Current      Renamed        Resyntaxed      Meaning
>#x           #string x      #string(x)      "x"
>x##y         x #glue y      #glue(x,y)      xy
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris