🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BzsK12.5Ky@jrd.dec.com>, diamond@jit533.jit.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
|> In article <JET.92Dec24133237@boxer.nas.nasa.gov> jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
|> >I looked in 2.2.4.1, but I don't recognize any of the translation
|> >limits as applying to the maximum depth of #if directives.  Could
|> >someone tell me where I should look, or if such a limit exists?
|> 
|> It looks like no such limit exists, so an implementation could set it at 1.

Please justify the claim that compilers can set arbitrary limits
for anything other than the features explicitly mentioned as limitable
by the standard.  On what basis can an implementation justify rejecting
a program that happens to exceed a limit of its devising such a limit.
What constraint or semantic requirement does it violate?

If a compiler can imposes arbitrary limits, is there any constraint
on the nature of such limits? For example, could I impose a limit on
the number of identifiers containing the sequence "xyyzz".   If not
why not?

  -- Jerry Schwarz

Just to put my cards on the table.  X3J16/SC22 (C++ standards
committee) is sharply divided on whether to have a section on
limits.  Some of us, including myself, argue that without such
a section any limit is a bug. With such a section arbitrary limits
are somehow condoned as suggested by Norman's comment, and we
don't want to condone any limits.