Related articles |
---|
Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. lwall@netlabs.com (1995-03-27) |
Whitespace (Was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu (1995-04-16) |
Re: Whitespace (Was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) ludemann@netcom.com (1995-04-28) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | ludemann@netcom.com (Peter Ludemann) |
Keywords: | design |
Organization: | NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) |
References: | 95-04-013 95-04-084 |
Date: | Fri, 28 Apr 1995 19:43:38 GMT |
Jonathan Eifrig <eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu> 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
implementations.
--
Peter Ludemann ludemann@netcom.com
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.