Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: goodbye cpp ??? (macros vs. inline functions)
Message-ID: <1761@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 23 Nov 88 19:44:00 GMT
References: <6590072@hplsla.HP.COM> <1757@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <3637@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1304@cod.NOSC.MIL> <12903@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 13

In article <12903@duke.cs.duke.edu> crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) writes:
< Several people have suggested that eliminating cpp would mean giving
< up conditional compilation, and I want to point out that this just
< isn't so.  There is no reason why the scanner can't handle conditional
< compilation as well, just as comments are handled.
< AND it means
< there doesn't need to be two phases for scanning, two parsers, two
< symbol tables, two "code generators" etc etc.

When I protested the loss of conditional compilation by dumping cpp, I
protested the loss of the *functionality* of cpp, not its implementation
as a separate pass. In my compiler (Zortech), the preprocessor is integrated
into the scanner, there is no separate pass. The compiler is obviously
much faster without the extra pass.