0x47e+barney not considered C

[Prescott K. Turner]

>In article <1988Jul6.142014.6116 at sq.uucp>, msb at 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