Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA From: gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA (VLD/VMB) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: ANSI proposal for preprocessor strings Message-ID: <8768@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 08:11:44 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8768 Posted: Thu Feb 28 08:11:44 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 04:25:01 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 13 People who are using undocumented behavior of the specific (Reiser) implementation of the C preprocessor are the only ones who will have a problem with a fully tokenized CPP. Their code is ALREADY broken, even though it appears to work on some systems. It should not be the purpose of the C standards committee to legitimatize existing illegal or nonportable use of C, but rather to define what usage IS portable. There are C preprocessors already in wide use (I once used one) that are built into the lexical analysis phase of the compiler. There is no good way to support this without defining CPP behavior in terms of tokens. The ugly kludges people have been using to date do not fit this model, and what we need is a SOLUTION. Asking everybody to code like people at Berkeley did is not a good solution!