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