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