Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: ANSI proposal for preprocessor strings Message-ID: <5184@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 12:13:33 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.5184 Posted: Thu Mar 7 12:13:33 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 12:13:33 EST References: <8768@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <458@ucsfcgl.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 25 > Let us say we have a preprocessor command > > # define FOO(d,e) printf("%d\n", e) > > Now, there are two ways this can be handled on current implementations > > (1) FOO(x,10) becomes printf("%x\n", 10) > (2) FOO(x,10) becomes printf("%d\n", 10) > > MOST implementations use style (1). MOST implementations use it > identically.... Please cite your justification for your use of the word "MOST" in this connection. What you say was probably true five years ago. It isn't now. The majority of current C implementations probably are *not* derived from Bell code, and therefore do not incorporate its eccentricities. C is no longer the near-exclusive property of Unix users, and the Unix implementations are now (I think) in the minority. Not because there aren't a lot more Unix implementations now, but because there are a LOT more non-Unix implementations. MANY, perhaps most, implementations of C do NOT use the Reiser cpp. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry