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