🚀 go-pugleaf

steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage) writes:

>mjn@pseudo.uucp (Murray Nesbitt) writes:
>
>>My advice?  Two minutes with a compiler would have saved you an
>>afternoon with the Standard.
>
>This is comp.STD.C, intended for discussions about what the Standard says.

You're right.  And neither one of us answered his question.  Here's
the original code snippet:

#define it 1,2
#define that(a,b) a+b

void f(void) {
	that(it);
	}

The Standard (Section 3.8.3) says:

     The number of arguments in an invocation of a function-like macro
     shall agree with the number of parameters in the macro definition
     [...].

This seems clear enough to me, but just in case there remains any
ambiguity regarding the order in which the argument substitutions take
place, the Standard (Section 3.8.3.1) says:

     After the arguments for the invocation of a function-like macro
     have been identified, argument substitution takes place. A
     parameter in the replacement list [...] is replaced by the
     corresponding argument after all macros contained therein have
     been expanded.

>Apart from that, suppose a compiler accepts some construct.  Does that
>mean the construct is Standard-conforming?  If the compiler rejects it,
>is the construct illegal?

Is this a trick question, Steve?

At any rate, in the context of comp.std.c, I see your point.

Murray
-- 
Until my site's in the maps, please reply to "druid!pseudo!mjn".