🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <815323606snz@soliton.demon.co.uk>, Ian Cargill <ian@soliton.demon.co.uk> writes:
> If it is OK to make setjmp a function, why define it as being a macro, 
> in 7.6.1.1?  The only other things defined this way are assert, va_arg, 
> va_start and va_end, all of which must be macros.  If you want to allow 
> it to be either a macro or a function, why use this special wording?
> Why not just specify it in the same way as other things which can be 
> function and/or macros? (i.e. most functions)  

Things in the library that are described as "functions" must be
implemented as functions -- the implementation is allowed to provide
them as macros, too, but is not required to.

Things in the library that are described as "macros" need not be
implemented as functions, although the implementation may provide them
if it wants to.  Since there need not be real functions, a strictly
conforming program must not take their addresses, or #undef them or
otherwise suppress their macro definitions and then try to use them.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
Shut up and go get me some antiseptic. -- Calvin