|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. email@example.com (1995-03-27)|
|Whitespace (Was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-16)|
|Re: Whitespace (Was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) email@example.com (1995-04-28)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Ludemann)|
|Organization:||NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)|
|Date:||Fri, 28 Apr 1995 19:43:38 GMT|
Jonathan Eifrig <email@example.com> wrote:
> C doesn't escape such cruftiness either, unfortunately: "\<NEWLINE>"
>is not the same as "\<SPACE><NEWLINE>", and the fact that preprocessor
>directives must start in column 1 means that the newline character isn't
>really "white" at all. An unfortunate legacy of the preprocessor.
I think that ANSI-C allows white space before "#" for preprocessor
directives. Anyway, as far as I know, there's no reason to have
"\<SPACE><NEWLINE>" as different from "\<NEWLINE>" ... in fact, the C
compilers for the IBM mainframe and AS/400 treat these as the same
(they have to: many source files have fixed-length records).
Another example of "white space" not being white is in "make": the
commands have to be preceded by a tab, which is not equivalent to
spaces. Again, there's no good reason for this, except perhaps
maintaining some strange kind of compatibility with the early
Peter Ludemann firstname.lastname@example.org
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.