Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!orr From: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Extensible or Preprocessor Message-ID: <1672@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 28 Sep 88 14:20:41 GMT References: <1593@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <810002@hpmtlx.HP.COM> <1650@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <837@cernvax.UUCP> Reply-To: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 15 In article <837@cernvax.UUCP> hjm@cernvax.UUCP (Hubert Matthews) writes: >One problem with pre-processors is error handling. Consider a PP that >translates Ratfor into FORTRAN IV. Whilst the program is running, a division >by zero occurs and an error is reported. The line number returned is the >number of the line that caused this exception, but in the FORTRAN program and >not the Ratfor program. This is neither necissarily true, nor true in practice. My C++ compiler (which is a preprocessor for C) produces error messages in terms of the original program, not the produced program. In fact in all the months I've been using this program I have never had to look at the code produced by the preprocessor (which is just as well since it is pretty unreadable.) By the way, I thought ratfor had evaporated into the mists of UNIX history.... ===Fraser