|Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-05-07)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com (1992-05-08)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-05-11)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless Zoid@mindlink.bc.ca (1992-05-11)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com (Bob Montante) (1992-05-12)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-05-13)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (1992-05-14)|
|From:||Bob Montante <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 12 May 1992 16:43:24 GMT|
| >DOS programs work correctly with text files that don't contain returns.
| >There is no technical reason why a compiler should care. -John]
If I recall correctly, the Turbo C compiler accepts programs with Unix-
style newlines --- BUT the Turbo C preprocessor chokes on them!
I can imagine an argument for this --- end-of-line is usually not
syntactically significant in C, but it is significant in "#define FOO ..."
type things that the preprocessor handles. But it's really aggravating,
[Sounds like a bug to me. Sheesh. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.