Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!jeff From: jeff@gatech.UUCP (Jeff Lee) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: C grammar Message-ID: <12283@gatech.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 15:02:23 EST Article-I.D.: gatech.12283 Posted: Fri Mar 1 15:02:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 05:15:59 EST References: <257@turing.UUCP>, <12086@gatech.UUCP> <5082@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Lines: 25 > > Yes. In the new standard, multicharacter character constants are allowed > > but (of course) are implementation defined. A character constant is an INT > > so you can guess what most implementations will do. > > Already do, you mean. There's nothing new about multi-character character > constants; they've been in C all along, with the same warnings about them > being highly implementation-dependent. I'm a bit disappointed that the > ANSI committee didn't delete them. Oh well. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Yes, I should have made that clearer. The correct phrase should probably have been "the new standard is continuing to propogate multi-character character constants". I don't understand leaving something that machine dependant in it, but at the same time they are removing one of the more useful additions; the CASE range. The last draft allowed a case to contain a "const .. const" contruct but (according to the draft that came here just today) that has now been removed. The notes say that it was removed after some discussion but what discussion was not mentioned. Oh well.... -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff.GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!jeff