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