Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mybest!moray!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: defining a comment? Keywords: preprocessor,comments Message-ID: <1534@ficc.uu.net> Date: 19 Sep 88 14:50:11 GMT References: <5438@techunix.BITNET> <13544@mimsy.UUCP> <779@proxftl.UUCP> <3999@bsu-cs.UUCP> Organization: SCADA Lines: 14 In article <3999@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > It is agreed that a Real ANSI-conforming C compiler might not supply a > separate preprocessor pass, but who cares? Such a C compiler would be > an instant commercial failure. Bzzzt! There are quite a few compilers with built-in preprocessors that are not commercial failures. I don't like this any better than you but like split I&D and income tax it's nothing that we can do anything about. I'm just glad that the compiler I use at home still has a seperate assembler pass. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net