Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5169Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C
From: Prescott K. Turner
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1988 22:51
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1988 22:51
21 lines
1303 bytes
1303 bytes
>In article <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp>, msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes:
>Without deep consideration I can't see why preprocessing numbers can't just
>be assigned the same syntax as ordinary numbers.
The first public review version of the standard seemed to do this. But it
had a problem because this would cause
1Ex
to be lexed into two tokens as
{1}{Ex}
whereas it also gave 1Ex as an example of something which gets lexed into
a single illegal token.
>The important question that hasn't been mentioned is this:
> How do existing compilers treat 0x47e+barney?
How do existing compilers treat 1Ex?
--
Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
Software Development Technologies, Inc.
375 Dutton Rd., Sudbury, MA 01776 USA (617) 443-5779
UUCP:...genrad!mrst!sdti!turner
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<283@sdti.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mailrus!ames!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!turnerReferences:
<1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mailrus!ames!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!turner From: turner@sdti.UUCP (Prescott K. Turner) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C Message-ID: <283@sdti.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 88 22:51:23 GMT References: <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp> Reply-To: turner@sdti.UUCP (Prescott K. Turner, Jr.) Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA Lines: 21