🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <727657228@majors3.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:
>diamond@jit.dec.com (Norman Diamond) :
>>In article <16355@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>>Am I likely to run into any trouble if I just go ahead and use what the
>>>standard itself proposes as an extension?

>>I don't see any wording in the standard that proposes an extension. [...]

>Does this imply that a conforming compiler faced with the [...] fragment
>#define fred(a,b,c) a b c
>fred(1,,3)
>is _required_ to issue a diagnostic?

No.  If this fragment violated a constraint, then the implementation would
have to issue a diagnostic while turning your keyboard into a mousetrap.
However, this fragment only violates semantics, so the implementation can
omit the diagnostic while turning your keyboard into a mousetrap (or can
issue a diagnostic if it wishes, or can proceed with b representing empty
like you really wanted if it wishes).
--
Norman Diamond                diamond@jit.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Pardon me?  Or do I have to commit a crime first?