Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mstan!amull
From: amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: #define OR ||
Summary: Yes, but
Message-ID: <699@s8.Morgan.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 90 20:43:36 GMT
References: <5940014@hpcupt1.HP.COM> <1922@gmdzi.UUCP> <22154@mimsy.umd.edu> <=9F1URFxds30@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY
Lines: 29

In article <=9F1URFxds30@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 
> Hey, if anything goes I'm sure I could convince C to accept something like:
> 
[ example of preprocessor induced confusion deleted ]

OK fine. Nobody is arguing that you cannot mess up C source by
an over-active preprocess fixation. However, most of the people
who are advocating replacing parts of C with other stuff have 
something more structured in mind. Even C resorts to this practice
with the definition of certain standard macros. The matter is clearly
about what constitutes generally versus specifically readable code.

Where readability is concerned, the preprocessor giveth, and the
preprocessor taketh away. Beauty is as always in the eye of the
beholder. Most of the arguments here are probably due to two 
different sets of beholders. I'm guessing, but I think one set
are people who program mostly in C on UNIX for systems, and they
want C to look like C. The other set, are applications programmers
with special requirements who are forced through circumstance to use
C against their will. (Gee- is it too late to get complex arithmetic
put in ANSI C? :-)).

So in short: Anything does not go. But if you want to ban using the
preprocessor to improve the appearance of source, it's OK by me as
long as you start with getchar.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt