🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11160@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> I asked about token pasting in
the #include directive, and then snidely remarked,

>>I must ask again which carries more weight, the stated rules or the
>>examples.

My real question does not appear to have been answered.  Only the
snide subsidiary question seems to matter.  That's what I get from
posting to usenet, eh?

In article <1989Nov22.222413.3874@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I must reply again :-), if you read section 1.4 very carefully, you will
>discover that the examples are technically not part of the standard.

Yes, but in other cases it has been determined that the examples
properly reflect the committee's intent, while the words do not
reflect the committee's intent.  And we are supposed to obey their
intent instead of their words.

The conclusion to my real question seems obvious now.  The pasting of
tokens in the #include directive is implementation-defined, but all
implementations must define it in the same manner as the example
(which in fact requires a form of pasting which conflicts with the
rules for preprocessing everything else in a source program).

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".