Checksum: 52407 Lines: 22 Path: utzoo!sq!msb From: msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) Date: Wed, 6-Jul-88 14:20:14 EDT Message-ID: <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp> Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C References: <120200001@hcx2> <10413@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <11445@steinmetz.ge.com> <10419@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <1287@maccs.McMaster.CA> <11462@steinmetz.ge.com> Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto [If you see this article twice, my apologies] The important question that hasn't been mentioned is this: How do existing compilers treat 0x47e+barney? If -- as I would guess -- it is generally accepted, then the Standard should accept it, and the current Draft needs a fix. Without deep consideration I can't see why preprocessing numbers can't just be assigned the same syntax as ordinary numbers. Can't we have something like preprocessing-number: floating-constant decimal-integer-constant hex-integer-constant etc.? (I'm winging this, but you get the idea.) Mark Brader, Toronto sed -e "s;??\\([-=(/)']\\);?\\\\?\\1;g" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com will fix them... -- Karl Heuer