This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Subject: Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>
- Date: 18 Jul 2000 22:51:24 +0200
- Cc: zack at wolery dot cumb dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200007180742.JAA29205@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <20000718011537.K7027@wolery.cumb.org> <200007181850.UAA01051@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <20000718124510.U7027@wolery.cumb.org> <200007182041.WAA01826@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>
"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
| > This is not a good error message. It expects the user to know gritty
| > details of the official grammar. I would much rather see something
| > like
| >
| > a.cc:1:9: "and" is not a legal macro name in C++
|
| This is slightly off-topic now, but I was going to make the comment
| that I feel such an error message is inappropriate; in particular,
| that use of the adjective "legal" is.
|
| I believe it was RMS who once mentioned that the compiler should not
| declare things "illegal"
| (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-09n/msg00395.html), with "not legal"
| probably being just as bad.
|
| I always used "ill-formed", to describe the code and not its authors,
| but that may be a bit technical.
I second your note; I think "ill-formed" or "invalid" may be good
qualifiers.
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com