|Pre-Parsers email@example.com (Jim Granville) (2000-09-08)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (Randall Hyde) (2000-09-09)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-09-13)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-09-15)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-09-21)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) (2000-10-08)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com.OZ.AU (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-10-12)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-10-12)|
|From:||Hans-Bernhard Broeker <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||8 Oct 2000 22:25:49 -0400|
|Organization:||Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)|
[Sorry for jumping in so late, on this... ]
> I often found source code with something like:
> #if sizeof(int)==2 ...
> Here sizeof() must be evaluated by the preprocessor.
'Must' is debatable, here. With equal justification, one could say
that source that contains such lines 'must' be rejected for being
incompatible with the definition of the language it's supposed to be
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (email@example.com)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
[What definition would that be? ANSI/ISO C certainly permits sizeof in
preprocessor expressions. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.