Another sizeof question
Doug Gwyn
gwyn at smoke.brl.mil
Sun Nov 11 19:45:15 AEST 1990
In article <2670 at cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl at oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In <14343 at smoke.brl.mil> gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In any case, we have been telling people for years that if they
> want a macro processor they should use something like "m4" rather
> than rely on cpp.
>Were UNIX the only environment to be considered, m4 could be considered
>a tolerable macro processor.
I said, "something like "m4"". For example, use the one in "Software Tools".
>The *only* macro processor that comes close to being ubiquitous and a de
>facto standard is the one described by K&R. This is why it's a loss
>that the standardization of C wasn't accompanied by the standardization
>of C's preprocessor as a stand-alone program.
The C preprocessor has never been a general-purpose macro processor, as
should be well known to anyone who has tried to use it as one. Further,
it was never required to be implemented separately from the C compiler, and
indeed it was integrated into the compiler in a number of implementations.
I get rather tired of people saying that the C standard should have
mandated exactly the parochial little enviropnment that they happened
to grow up in.
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list