Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mailrus!ames!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!turner From: turner@sdti.UUCP (Prescott K. Turner) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C Message-ID: <283@sdti.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 88 22:51:23 GMT References: <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp> Reply-To: turner@sdti.UUCP (Prescott K. Turner, Jr.) Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA Lines: 21 >In article <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp>, msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes: >Without deep consideration I can't see why preprocessing numbers can't just >be assigned the same syntax as ordinary numbers. The first public review version of the standard seemed to do this. But it had a problem because this would cause 1Ex to be lexed into two tokens as {1}{Ex} whereas it also gave 1Ex as an example of something which gets lexed into a single illegal token. >The important question that hasn't been mentioned is this: > How do existing compilers treat 0x47e+barney? How do existing compilers treat 1Ex? -- Prescott K. Turner, Jr. Software Development Technologies, Inc. 375 Dutton Rd., Sudbury, MA 01776 USA (617) 443-5779 UUCP:...genrad!mrst!sdti!turner